Exemption entries apply by specific description, and parts imported for manufacture qualify only if the statutory condition is met.

A fibre optic endoscope described in the bill of entry as a pocket autoscope was held entitled to concessional duty because it matched the specific description in Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94, and exemption could not be denied merely on the basis of trade nomenclature. Rechargeable batteries and halogen lamps were held not eligible under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 144/88 because that benefit applied only to parts of specified goods imported for manufacture of such goods, and the importer was a trader, not a manufacturer. The order was modified to allow exemption only for the pocket autoscope and deny it for the other items.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pocket autoscope described as a fibre optic endoscope with spacula was entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94. (ii) Whether rechargeable battery and halogen lamps were eligible for benefit under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 144/88.

Issue (i): Whether pocket autoscope described as a fibre optic endoscope with spacula was entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94.

Analysis: The imported item was found to answer the description of a fibre optic endoscope and accessories. Since the notification specifically covered that description, the claimed concession could not be denied merely because the item was described by trade name in the bill of entry.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 65/88 as amended by Notification No. 123/94 was admissible to the appellant for the pocket autoscope.

Issue (ii): Whether rechargeable battery and halogen lamps were eligible for benefit under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 144/88.

Analysis: Sl. No. 40 granted benefit only to parts of goods described in Sl. Nos. 1 to 39 when imported for manufacture of such goods. The items were treated as spare parts, but the appellant was not a manufacturer and was only a trader. The statutory condition of import for manufacture was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 144/88 was not admissible to the appellant for rechargeable battery and halogen lamps.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified to allow concessional duty only on the pocket autoscope, while denying the exemption for rechargeable battery and halogen lamps, and the matter stood disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption entry must be applied according to its specific description and, where a notification restricts benefit to parts imported for manufacture, the benefit is unavailable unless that condition is fulfilled.

---