Exemption cannot be denied on hypothetical future modification where cleared goods squarely fit the exempted description.

Centrifuges classifiable under sub-heading 8421.00 were held to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 69/90-C.E. because the notification expressly covered goods under that heading, and denial of the benefit was inconsistent with its plain terms. Baths other than cryostat under heading 8419.00 were also held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86, as they were cleared with a cooling system but without condensors, compressors, or air-conditioning devices, and a hypothetical future fitment could not justify exclusion. The adverse findings on both items were set aside, and the assessee succeeded on both exemption claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether centrifuges classifiable under sub-heading 8421.00 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 69/90-C.E.; (ii) Whether baths other than cryostat falling under heading 8419.00, though having a cooling system, were excluded from Notification No. 155/86 merely because they could possibly be fitted with condensors or compressors.

Issue (i): Whether centrifuges classifiable under sub-heading 8421.00 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 69/90-C.E.

Analysis: Centrifuges were not in dispute as goods falling under sub-heading 8421.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The notification granted exemption to goods under that sub-heading, and the denial of the benefit was contrary to its plain terms.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 69/90-C.E. was available to centrifuges, and the adverse finding was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether baths other than cryostat falling under heading 8419.00, though having a cooling system, were excluded from Notification No. 155/86 merely because they could possibly be fitted with condensors or compressors.

Analysis: The item was stated to have a cooling system but no air-conditioning devices, condensors, or compressors, and was not shown to be part of refrigeration or air-conditioning machinery. A mere possibility of future fitting of such parts was not a valid basis to deny exemption when the goods as cleared did not contain them and were not otherwise covered by the exclusion.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 155/86 was available to baths other than cryostat, and the adverse finding was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both exemption claims, and the impugned order was set aside insofar as both items were concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption cannot be denied on a hypothetical possibility of future modification where the goods as cleared squarely fall within the exempted description and are not covered by the stated exclusion.

---