Strict construction of exemption notifications defeats relief where imported equipment does not match the notified breathing apparatus description.

Imported compressed air life saving breathing equipment was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. because the product literature and technical materials showed it to be an oxygen concentrator rather than a complete compressed air breathing apparatus. The exemption entry was construed strictly, and only goods clearly answering the notified description could obtain the benefit. As the imported item did not match that description, exemption was denied and the Revenue's position was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported equipment, described as Compressed Air Life Saving Breathing Equipment, qualified for exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22-9-1981 as a Complete Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus.

Analysis: The goods were examined with reference to the catalogue, technical write-up and the opinion relied upon by the appellate authority. Those materials indicated that the item was in the nature of an oxygen concentrator and not a complete compressed air breathing apparatus. The exemption entry specifically covered only a complete breathing apparatus, and the description in the product literature did not establish that the imported equipment answered that description.

Conclusion: The imported goods did not satisfy the exemption entry and were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22-9-1981. The finding of the appellate authority was set aside and the denial of exemption was upheld, in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied to goods that strictly and clearly answer the notified description, and where the product literature shows a different article, exemption cannot be granted.

---