Clarificatory exemption amendment cannot widen coverage to oxygen gas generated during vanaspati production.

An exemption under Notification No. 115/75 was confined to the goods and industries expressly covered by its terms, including the scheduled oil mill and solvent extraction industry. Oxygen gas generated in the course of vanaspati production did not fall within that exempted class, because the respondent manufactured goods under Headings 15.04 and 15.08, and the amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than enlarging the exemption. The earlier Tariff Item 68-based exemption also did not cover oxygen gas, so the later amendment could not extend benefit to goods never intended to be exempt. The exemption was therefore inadmissible and the departmental appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether oxygen gas manufactured in the course of production of vanaspati was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 115/75 as amended, and whether the respondent's factory could be treated as an industry covered by the schedule to that notification.

Analysis: Notification No. 115/75 initially granted exemption to goods falling under Tariff Item 68 manufactured in industries specified in its Schedule, including oil mill and solvent extraction industry. After the introduction of the new tariff and the later amendment, the exemption was understood, on the departmental clarification, to continue only for excisable goods other than those under Headings 15.03 and 15.04, and the amending notification was treated as clarificatory. The respondent was manufacturing goods under Headings 15.04 and 15.08, and oxygen generated in that process was therefore outside the intended scope of the exemption. The record also showed that oxygen had not been covered under the earlier Tariff Item 68-based exemption, and the amendment could not be read as extending the benefit to goods that were never covered earlier.

Conclusion: The exemption for oxygen gas was not admissible, and the order granting the benefit was . The departmental appeal succeeded and the disallowance of exemption was restored.

Final Conclusion: The exemption notification was confined to the class of goods and industries covered by its terms, and a clarificatory amendment did not enlarge the exemption to include oxygen gas generated in the respondent's manufacturing process.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory amendment to an exemption notification cannot be construed to enlarge the scope of the exemption beyond the goods and industries originally covered by the notification.

---