IMPORTANT POINT
Beneficial Notifications should be construed liberally.

ORDER

1. This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT'), Mumbai in Appeal No. C/43/02- Mumbai, dated 04.09.2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the CESTAT has granted relief to the Assessee by giving a liberal interpretation to the beneficial Notification No. 17/01-Cus dated 1.3.2001, as amended by Notification No. 44/01-Cus, dated 26.4.2001.

2. The Assessee is an importer. It has imported one unit of equipment which was declared as "Kari Mayer High Speed Draw Warping Machine with 1536 ends along with essential spares". On such importation, it had presented the Bill of Entry No. 207814 dated 25.9.2001 before the Customs authorities, inter alia, seeking clearance of the same by extending the benefit of the Notification No. 17/01-Cus dated 1.3.2001, as amended by Notification No. 44/01-Cus, dated 26.04.2001. The Customs authorities had refused to accept the request of the Assessee and accordingly, had directed the Assessee to pay the duty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Act" for short). Therefore, the Assessee was constrained to pay the duty in order to clear the goods. The said payment was made under protest so that it could carry the matter further in appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

3. In the appeal filed, the First Appellate Authority has confirmed the view of the Customs authority. Dissatisfied with the order so passed, the Assessee had carried the matter in appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT has granted relief to the Assessee.

4. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the same is, before us in this appeal.

5. We have heard Shri. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. B. Sunita Rao for the Revenue and Shri. S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel for the Assessee.

6. Shri. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, after bringing to our notice the Notification under which the Assessee had claimed benefit for the imported goods, would submit, that, what was imported by the Assessee was not in consonance with the exemption notification and, therefore, the authorities under the Act were justified in denying the benefit available under the notification to the Assessee. The learned senior counsel further submits, what is imported by the Assessee is High Speed Draw Warping Machine with yard tensioning without the pneumatic suction device but with a drawing machine. The learned Counsel would submit, since what was imported is not in accordance with Entry 8 of the table appended to the Notification, the Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.

7. Per contra, Shri Bagaria, learned senior counsel would submit that the beneficial notification should be given a liberal construction and if it is done, then, what is imported by the Assessee would fall within Entry 8 of the table appended to the exemption notification.

8. The Central Government, in exercise of its power under Section 25(1) of the Act, has issued an exemption notification in public interest, exempting certain articles notified under the table appended to the notification from payment of the duty under the Act. Several items are enumerated under the table. Entry 130 of the table speaks of drawing machine. Entry 8 of the notification speaks of the High Speed Warping Machine with yarn tensioning, pneumatic suction devices and accessories. A reading of the said entry would indicate that the said machine is a composite machine. The pneumatic suction devices are machines used for the purpose of sucking of vapour/gas, while the High speed warping machine is activated or warped. There is no dispute that the Assessee has imported High speed warping machine but without pneumatic suction device, but with drawing unit. The textile commissioner, who is well conversant with these machines, has stated vide his letter dated 27.9.2001 that the goods imported by the Assessee are covered under Entry-8 of the Table appende