Strict construction of exemption notifications excludes parts and accessories, while a corrigendum can reset limitation for duty demand.

Notification No. 46/88-C.E. was construed strictly and held not to extend to parts and accessories of scientific instruments and apparatus falling under Heading 90.27, because the exemption covered only the goods expressly described in the table. Chapter Note 2(b) of Chapter 90 did not enlarge that notification's scope. The demand was, however, limited by limitation because the corrigendum dated 1-8-1989 materially changed the basis of demand from the original show cause notice; recovery was therefore sustainable only for the six months preceding the corrigendum, and the period before 1-2-1989 was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 46/88-C.E. applied to parts and accessories of scientific instruments falling under Heading 90.27; (ii) Whether the demand of duty was barred for the period prior to the corrigendum dated 1-8-1989.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 46/88-C.E. applied to parts and accessories of scientific instruments falling under Heading 90.27.

Analysis: The notification exempted only the goods specifically described in the table, namely instruments and apparatus. On a plain reading, that description did not include parts and accessories of such instruments and apparatus. Chapter Note 2(b) of Chapter 90 did not expand the scope of the exemption notification so as to cover those parts and accessories.

Conclusion: The notification did not apply to parts and accessories of scientific instruments and apparatus. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty was barred for the period prior to the corrigendum dated 1-8-1989.

Analysis: The original show cause notice proceeded on a different basis, namely the proposed classification under Heading 9033, while the corrigendum raised the specific ground that the notification was inapplicable to parts and accessories. The corrigendum introduced a material change in the basis of demand, so the relevant limitation period had to be counted backwards from that date.

Conclusion: Duty demand prior to 1-2-1989 was barred by limitation, and the demand was sustainable only for the six months preceding the corrigendum. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed on merits, but the demand was restricted by limitation to the period within six months before the corrigendum.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed strictly according to its description of covered goods, and a later corrigendum that materially changes the basis of demand limits recovery to the statutory period computed from that corrigendum.

---