Strict construction of exemption notifications defeats claimed identity of stamping foils and pigment finish where end use alone is insufficient.

Exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and goods qualify only when the notified description clearly covers them. The amendment to the notification removed the earlier exemption for stamping foils, and there was no remaining entry exempting pigment finish for leather. The respondent's material did not establish that stamping foils and pigment finish were the same product; shared use in the leather industry was insufficient to treat them as identical, and the chemical reports did not prove equivalence. The claim to exemption therefore failed, and the assessment order was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether stamping foils imported by the respondent were covered by the exemption notification as pigment finishes for leather, and whether stamping foils and pigment finish could be treated as the same product for the purpose of exemption.

Analysis: The exemption notification, as amended, did not contain any entry exempting pigment finish for leather. The earlier exemption for stamping foils ceased to be available after the amendment. On the factual question, the material relied upon by the respondent did not establish that stamping foil and pigment finish were the same; the fact that both were used in the leather industry was insufficient to equate them. The reliance on the chemical reports was therefore misplaced.

Conclusion: The claim to exemption failed and the imported goods were not entitled to the benefit of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order in favour of the respondent was set aside, and the assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be strictly construed, and goods can be treated as covered by it only when the notified description clearly applies; mere similarity of end use does not establish identity of goods for exemption purposes.

---