SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) and the Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, have filed the present writ petition for setting aside and quashing the Order No. AAR/CUS/01/2015 dated 15th May, 2015 passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings (the AAR, for short).

2. The impugned order holds that Kindle e-reading devices imported by M/s Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, the respondent before us and the applicant before the AAR, being "electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions" were exempt from basic customs duty vide serial No. 26 of the Exemption Notification No. 25/2005-CUS dated 1st March, 2005 as amended by notification No. 133/2006-CUSTOMS dated 30th December, 2006 (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the exemption notification').

3. Counsel for petitioner-Revenue has confined and restricted his challenge to the interpretation given to the expression "electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions" in Serial No. 26 of the exemption notification i.e. whether Kindle e-reading devices were "electrical machines with translation and dictionary function". Revenue does not dispute the finding that Kindle devices are electrical machines under the residuary clause, i.e., "others" under the residuary Custom Tariff Heading (CTH, for short) 8543 89/8543 7099.

4. Revenue submits that the primary function of Kindle e-reading devices was not to translate or perform dictionary functions and hence, they would not be covered under the expression "electrical machine with translation or dictionary function". Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi versus Hari Chand Shri Gopal And Others, (2011) 1 SCC 236 and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus Dilip Kumar, in Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007 decided on 30th July,2018, to urge that exemption notifications should be construed and interpreted strictly and in case of ambiguity and doubt interpretation in favour of the Revenue, rather than the assessee is mandated and required.

5. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Serial No. 26 of the exemption notification has been rightly interpreted by the AAR, for the expression used in the notification was, 'electrical machines with translation or dictionary functions' and the word “with”, indicates that translation or dictionary function need not be the dominant or the primary purpose of the electrical machines. It would be sufficient if the electrical machines could perform and have translation or dictionary function, a feature admittedly present in the Kindle e-reading devices. Distinction and difference in use of the word "for" in the exemption notification with reference to other exempted items was highlighted. This was the core reasoning given by the AAR in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the impugned order.

6. Respondent has highlighted that a number of other contentions and arguments were raised by the Revenue before the AAR, including question of classification under the CHA 8543 89/8543 7099, which were examined and dealt with in the impugned order. Contentions now raised are somewhat different from the primary and core submission before the AAR.

7. At the outset, we may record that the Revenue has not contested and questioned classification of Kindle e-reading devices under the CHA 8543 89/8543 7099. Thus, two sides are ad idem that Kindle e-reading devices would be covered under the residuary tariff item CHA 8543 89/8543 7099, i.e., "others", under the Chapter 85 heading "electrical and electronic machinery and equipment".

8. In order to appreciate and understand the contention raised on interpretation of exemption notification, we would like to quote relevant portion from the notification dated 30th December, 2006 which reads :-

“G.S.R. (E).