Full Judgment
2. We have heard the Ld. SDR who reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the dispute in the light of opinions procured by the respondent from the Bureau of Indian Standards and another expert. The Notification contained a clear description of the item entitled to exemption in the explanation under the entry at Sl.No. 255. The Commissioner misdirected himself in following extraneous authorities when the notification itself contained an unambiguous description of the goods entitled to the exemption.
4. We have carefully considered the case records and the submissions of the Ld. SDR. Explanation in the notification No. 5/98 for 'Programmable Process Controllers' referred to at Sl.No. 255 reads as follows: Explanation -- 'Programmable Process Controllers' means an automatic regulator of electrical quantities, or an instrument or apparatus for automatically controlling non-electrical quantities the operation of which depends on an electrical phenomenon varying according to the factor to be controlled.
The impugned goods are Automatic Voltage Stabilizers. Voltage stabilizers are devices that ensure supply of electricity at a constant voltage of incoming electricity at varying voltages. Therefore, the impugned goods satisfy the definition of programmable process controllers as an automatic regulator of electrical quantities, electrical quantity in the instant case being voltage of electric current. Therefore, voltage stabilizers are not covered by exemption intended for goods other than programmable process controllers. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the captioned appeal filed by the Revenue.