TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02 who rejected their refund claim of Rs. 7,20,346/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants imported three electronic total stations-Topcon and Leica make against two Bills of Entry, dated 3-4-1999 and 7-4-1999 and paid duty thereon in all of Rs. 7,20,346/- vide TR-6 challans, dated 8-5-1999 and 25-5-1999. However, later on they filed an application for refund of the duty amount on the ground that they were not liable to pay the same in view of the exemption Notifications Nos. 73/97 dated 3-10-1997 and 20/99 as the equipments (electronic total stations) were imported by them to carry out the surveys as contemplated under the contract agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 28-2-1999. They voluntarily paid the duty and cleared the equipments. Only after a lapse of nearly five months from the date of payment of duty they moved application for the refund of the duty amount on the ground that they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification Nos. 73/97 and 20/99 and as such were not liable to pay any duty on the imported equipments as the same were imported by them to carry out a topographical survey of NH-6 under a contract agreement dated 30-11-1998 entered into with the National Highway Authority of India. 9. It has been also not disputed before us that out of the above referred two notifications relied upon by the appellants, only Notification No. 20/99 was in force as Notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned equipments electronic total stations. They were only as per their own version awarded contract agreement for carrying out the topographical survey of NH-6. Therefore, apparently, the appellants at the time of import and clearance of the impugned equipments could not claim any benefit of Notification No. 20/99 as they did not satisfy the requirement condition No. 75 referred to above. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that since the construction activity could not commence and negotiated by the National Highway Authority of India, unless survey was carried out and as such the survey contract entered into by that authority with the appellants must be construed as contract for construction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has to be given effect to. The construction which enlarges the terms and scope of the notification is not permissible under the law. In this context reference may be made to Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has observed, "that the notification has to be construed strictly at the stage of determination whether the assessee falls within its terms or not and in case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State". Similarly, in Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Collector, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 474, the Apex Court regarding interpretation of exemption notification has ruled as under :- "Liberal construction of exemption notification which enlarges the terms and scope of notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unflame Industries - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 726 (Tribunal - LB). (5)  Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 472 (T). in order to convass that the wording of Notification No. 20/99 be construed in favour of the appellants, but the rule of interpretation of the notification emphasised in these cases is not different than the one laid down by the Apex Court in Novopan India Ltd. and Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. (supra). In those cases also it has been observed that where the language of the notification is quite clear and unambiguous it has to be given effect to as it is and no addition or substraction therein can be made by while interpreting the same. 14. In the light of the discussion made above, the appellants....