Judgment:
1. The appellants imported Worm Wheels under Bill of Entry dated 29-4-1988 through Madras Port for their machinery at Tuticorin. The impugned goods were classified under CTH 8483.90. The appellants claimed classification under CTH 9806.00 and benefit of assessment under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. The claim was rejected by Assistant Collector. Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the order of Asstt.
Collector. The appellants have now come in appeal before the Tribunal.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. The appellants have, however, requested for decision on merits.
3. The appellants claimed that Notification No. 69/87 should be read harmoniously with Notification No. 132/87-Cus. Notification No.69/87-Cus. was issued on 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 132/87-Cus. on 19-3-1987 without amending the earlier Notification No. 69/87. The intention of the Govt. was only to exclude parts of machinery falling under CTH 8483.20 and 8483.30 from Chapter 98 and not part of other machinery. When both notifications referred to goods under CTH 84.83, it should be read harmoniously and benefit of exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. should be extended to them.
4. Arguing for the revenue, ld. DR submits that Notification No. 132/87 specifically excludes. Goods falling under Heading 84.83 and therefore in terms of Chapter Note 7 of Chapter 98, these goods cannot be classified under Heading 98.06 but have to find place only under CTH 8483.90. In this view of the matter, therefore, the appellants could not claim benefit of exemption under Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 which was issued prior to 19-3-1987. There is no question of any beneficial provision to be extended to the appellants in case of exemption and, in fact if there is a doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to the State as held by the Apex Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Hyderabad -1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (SC) and Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 5. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. According to Chapter Note 7(d) Heading 98.06 does not cover among others : "any other part of machinery which the Central Government may, having regard to its nature of being a part having general application, notify in the Official Gazette in this behalf." The Central Govt. in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) to Note 7 of Chapter 98, having regard to its nature of being a part having general application, notified the goods described in the table annexed to Notification No. 132/87, dated 19-3-1987. Goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.83 are among others such notified goods indicated against S. No. 4 of the table of this notification. In other words, in exercise of specific powers conferred on the Central Govt, goods falling under Heading 84.83 were notified as goods having general application which in terms of Chapter Note 7(d) would not be covered under CTH 98.06. In view of this, it is clear that the impugned goods cannot be classified tinder Heading 98.06 and would not be eligible to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987.
Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 of course includes goods classifiable under Heading 84.83 (excluding 8483.20 and 8483.30) in the table annexed to that Notification. We are, however, unable to accept the plea of the appellants that the scope of beneficial provision should be extended to them by harmoniously constructing Notification Nos. 132/87 and 69/87. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (SC) that exemption being in the nature of exception, has to be construed strictly. Relying on earlier decision in the case of Mangalore Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Collector -1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (SC), The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "The principle that in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of the assessee - assuming that the said principle in good and sound - does not apply to the construction of an exception or an exempting provision, they have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. This is for the reason explained in Mangalore Chemicals and other decisions, viz., each such exception/exemption increases the tax burden on other members of the community correspondingly. Once, of course, the provision is found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (SC) - 1069 (2) S.C.R. 253 that such a Notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to be clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e. by the plain terms of the exemption." The principle was reiterated again by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1995 (75) E.L.T. 13 (SC). Apex Court held that in case of exemption notification, the ambiguity or doubt will be resolved in favour of the Revenue and not in favour of the assessee. Apex Court held that the matter is concluded by recent decision of three Member Bench of the Court in case of Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (SC).
6. In view of this, we are of the view that goods would not merit classification under Heading 98.06 as claimed and benefit of Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 could not be extended to the appellants in view of the specific provision made in Notification No.132/87, dated 19-3-1987. We therefore, reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.