COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. MODI RUBBER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents imported styrene butadiene latex. They claimed for the purposes of payment of Customs duty thereon the benefit of an exemption notification (No. 82/86), as amended on 2nd April, 1986. So amended, this is how the said notification read:

(2.) The exemption was denied to the respondents on the ground that under clause 1A of the said notification styrene butadiene latex was not entitled to it. This was the view taken all the way up to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, whose order is under challenge before us. The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee, agreeing with the argument of its counsel that the exclusion in clause 1A was only of styrene butadiene rubber and oil extended styrene butadiene rubber and did not cover other forms of styrene butadiene.

(3.) It will be seen that the principal clause of the said exemption notification "exempts raw rubber, natural or synthetic rubber, latex, natural or synthetic. . . . . . ." The principal clause of the said notification, therefore, makes a distinction between rubber, natural or synthetic, and latex, natural or synthetic. Bearing this in mind, one has to read Clause 1A of the said notification. It says that the said notification shall not apply to "styrene butadiene rubber and oil extended styrene butadiene rubber." It covers, therefore, the rubber but not the latex.