ORDER : Markandey Katju, J. This appeal is directed against the Final order No. C-II/292/WZB/2001 dated 31.01.2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short' the Tribunal') in Appeal No.C/418-R/96-Bom. whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order in original as well as the appellate order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Assessee-appellant, hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant', imported filter cartridges falling under chapter 59 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short 'the tariff Act'). They filed bill of entry No. 6222 dated 21.12.1992 for the clearance of these cartridges at the Bombay Port. In the bill of entry filed by the appellant, it claimed exemption from the payment of customs duty under notification No. 173/92-Cus. dated 30.4.1992 which exempted the imported goods from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule as is in excess of 55% ad valorem. The goods were duly assessed by the Customs authorities and the same were cleared on payment of the basic duty of customs at the rate as prescribed under this notification i.e. 55%. 3. Subsequently, on 29.6.1993 the appellant filed a claim for refund of the duty paid in excess with the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), New Customs House, Mumbai. Appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 1,31,255/- with interest on the ground that at the relevant time the basic duty under the First Schedule of the tariff Act on the imported goods was at the rate of 40% and since the duty prescribed in the exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 can never be more than the rate prescribed in the tariff Act, the appellant had paid duty in excess to the tune of 15% and, therefore, it is entitled to the refund of the excess duty paid. 4. Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), Mumbai vide his order dated 28.12.1994 rejected the claim for refund by observing thus: "The party is now claiming refunds on the grounds that tariff rate for Basic Customs duty in the instant case is 40% therefore the same should only be charged, and auxiliary duty at the concessional rate of 5% (vide notification No. 192/1992 replacing 124/92 should be charged. The Notification No. 192/92 exempts the goods which are partially or wholly exempted from the duty of customs specified in the 1st schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, by virtue of such notification which are specified in the schedule to the above such notification. Once the party opts to pay the tariff rate of Customs Basic Duty, the notification No. 192/92 will not be applicable since the goods no longer remain partially or wholly exempted for the benefit of notification No. 173/92 as envisaged vide the notification (No. 192/92). In view of the above the party was required to pay 40% (Basic Customs Duty) + 45% (Auxiliary + CVD) duty. Where as they have paid 55% + 5% + CVD." 5. The judgment of this Court in the case of CC v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. 1992 (61) ELT 332 = (1993) 1 Suppl. SCC 489 was distinguished on the ground that the facts in the present case were different than the facts in the aforesaid case. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was rejected upholding the order in original. Being further aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been rejected by the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have adopted the reasoning given in the order in original in rejecting the claim of refund filed by the appellant. 7. Chapter 59 deals with: "Impregnated, Coated, Covered or Laminated Textile Fabrics: Textile Articles of a Kind Suitable for Industrial use." 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have adopted the reasoning given in the order in original in rejecting the claim of refund filed by the appellant. 7. Chapter 59 deals with: "Impregnated, Coated, Covered or Laminated Textile Fabrics: Textile Articles of a Kind Suitable for Industrial use." 8. The relevant heading of the Tariff Act 5911.90 reads: 5911.90 - Other - 40% ...." Notification No. 173/92 reads/provides: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed and falling within one or more Chapters of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India for the purpose of manufacture of the goods specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table, from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 55 per cent ad valorem, subject to the following conditions, namely:-" 9. The goods imported by the appellant fall under entry 23 of this notification and the same reads as under: "23. 48,59,84 (i) Denim Paper Magnetic Tape, (ii) Filter Cartridges Capacitor Grade (iii)Filter elements Metallised Plastic Films, Connectors, Relays, Switches, Printed Circuit Boards." 10. The goods imported by the appellant fall under entry 23 of this notification and the same reads as under: "23. 48,59,84 (i) Denim Paper Magnetic Tape, (ii) Filter Cartridges Capacitor Grade (iii)Filter elements Metallised Plastic Films, Connectors, Relays, Switches, Printed Circuit Boards." 10. Notification No. 192/92 granting partial exemption from payment of auxiliary duty in excess of 5% ad valorem on certain goods which are either partially or wholly exempted from the basic customs duty reads as under: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), read with sub-section (4) of section 111 of the Finance Act, 1992 (18 of 1992), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 124/92- Customs, dated the 1st March, 1992, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods which are partially or wholly exempt from the duty of customs specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), by virtue of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking or Department of Revenue, as the case may be, specified in the Schedule below, from so much of the auxiliary duty of customs leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 111 of the said Finance Act as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 5 per cent of the value of such goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the first mentioned Act: Provided that the exemption under this notification with respect to any goods mentioned in any notification specified in the said Schedule shall be subject to the conditions, if any, subject to which goods are exempt by virtue of such notification, either partially or wholly from the duty of customs specified in the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act." 11. Notification No. 173/92 finds mention at serial No.95 and the same reads as under: "95. No.173-Customs, dated the 30th April, 1992." 12. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 13. Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that duty of customs shall be levied at the rates specified in the Act. Notification No. 173/92 finds mention at serial No.95 and the same reads as under: "95. No.173-Customs, dated the 30th April, 1992." 12. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 13. Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that duty of customs shall be levied at the rates specified in the Act. Section 2 of the Act provides that duties of customs shall be levied as specified in the First and Second Schedules. First Schedule to the Act gives rates of customs duty in respect of imported goods, while Second Schedule gives rates of customs duty in respect of exported goods. The rate of customs duty charged on the imported goods cannot be more than the rate prescribed in the First Schedule to the Act. The basic duty under the tariff Act for the goods imported was 40%. Under notification No. 173/92 the appellant was entitled to exemption of the customs duty in excess of 55%. Under notification No. 192/92 the assessee could avail of the partial exemption from payment of auxiliary duty in case the assessee was entitled to the exemption under notification 173/92. Since the appellant was admittedly entitled to the exemption under notification 173/92 but could not avail of the same as the basic duty under the Act was less than 55% i.e. 40%, it could avail of the partial exemption from payment of auxiliary duty given under notification 192/92. Appellant could not be asked to pay the customs duty in excess of the basic duty provided under the First Schedule to the tariff Act. It was under a misunderstanding of law that the appellant had paid the duty in excess of what was provided under the relevant entry of tariff Act and, therefore, it is entitled to the refund of the duty paid in excess of the basic duty of the tariff rate. 14. It is not disputed before us that the goods imported by the appellant are covered under the Exemption Notification No. 173/92. Once it is so, then the appellant became entitled to avail of the exemption under the said notification but the basic duty provided under the Act being less than 55%, i.e., 40%, it could not avail of the said benefit. Its applicability cannot be confined to items of goods in respect of which a reduction in duty is actually availed. Once it is so, then the appellant became entitled to avail of the exemption under the said notification but the basic duty provided under the Act being less than 55%, i.e., 40%, it could not avail of the said benefit. Its applicability cannot be confined to items of goods in respect of which a reduction in duty is actually availed. What has to be considered is the entitlement to the exemption under the notification. Once entitlement is there the assessee becomes entitled to exemption from auxiliary duty as well. Only because it got the benefit of reduction in the payment of auxiliary duty the assessee cannot be asked to pay the duty in excess of the tariff rate prescribed under the Tariff Act. Since the appellant was entitled to avail of the exemption under notification 173/92, it became entitled to avail of partial exemption from payment of the auxiliary duty under notification 192/92. The appellant could not be asked to pay more than the basic rate of duty provided under the Act only because it had availed of the benefit of partial exemption from payment of auxiliary duty as provided under notification 192/92. 15. The view taken by us finds support from the decision of this Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra). In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra), this Court rejected the following contention. "(ii) The relief in respect of auxiliary duty under Notification No. 41/80 is available only where the goods in question are partially or wholly exempt from duty of customs by virtue of the notifications of the Government of India specified in the Schedule. In the present case the duty of customs leviable on the part taken by itself, under Item Heading No. 92.04, as well as the duty leviable on the article of which it forms a part, under Item 84.04/05, are the same. Consequently, the pressure gauges have not become entitled to any exemption or concession by virtue of the Notification No. 35/79. The terms of Notification No. 41/80 are thus not fulfilled and the assessee is not entitled to the relief claimed raised on behalf of the revenue in the following terms: The second contention of the learned counsel runs thus: the concession or exemption from auxiliary duty under Notification No. 41/80 can be claimed only in respect of goods which are partially or wholly exempt by virtue of Notification No. 35/79. The parts in the present case as well as the principal article of which they are part are both assessable to basic duty at the same rate. Since the duty payable on the part, even without invoking the notification, is not in excess of the duty payable on the article, the assessee cannot be said to have got a partial or complete exemption of basic duty by virtue of Notification No. 35/79. Consequently, the assessee cannot claim any benefit under Notification No. 41/80. This interpretation no doubt leads to an anomaly in marginal cases. If the rate of duty on the part had been 41%, the assessee would have been entitled to a complete exemption from auxiliary duty. On the other hand, if the rate of duty on the part had only been 39% or 40%, he would have to pay the auxiliary duty because the Notification does not apply to it in terms. Counsel however, submits that such anomalies are inevitable in the case of provisions of this type and that, in taxing matters, it is imperative to concentrate on the language of the statute or the relevant statutory instrument. If the wording clearly imposes a tax or gives a relief, that should be given effect to. If the wording does not justify either the imposition or the relief, it should not be extended merely on the ground that there may be some unintended anomaly as a consequence of the interpretation or that the equities of the situation require a more liberal interpretation. There is, however, another way of reading the notifications before us and it is this which appeals to us as the more reasonable one. On this interpretation, relief under Notification No. 41/80 will not depend upon the actual operation or application of Notification No. 35/79 in the case of a particular item of goods. It is intended for a class of goods. The 1979 notification grants an exemption or concession in respect of the basic duty payable on certain classes of goods viz parts of articles which fall under one of the specified headings and required for certain purposes. The purport and intention of the 1980 notification is to exempt the class of goods falling under the purview of the 1979 notification from auxiliary duty as well. The purport and intention of the 1980 notification is to exempt the class of goods falling under the purview of the 1979 notification from auxiliary duty as well. The exemption under the 1980 notification does not depend, in this view, on the practical effect of the application of the 1979 notification in a particular case. Its applicability should not be confined to items of goods in respect of which a reduction in duty is actually enjoyed under one of the notifications included in the Schedule to the 1980 notification. There appears to be no logic in saying that the exemption from auxiliary duty in respect of the same part will be available only where the duty chargeable on the part is more than, but becomes equal to, that on the whole article by applying the 1979 notification but not where the duty on the part is the same as that of the whole even otherwise. Equally, it seems absurd to say that when the part suffers a basic duty of 40% and the whole a duty of 40%, there will be a counter-vailing duty but that there will be no such duty where the basic duty on the part is 41% or more but reduced to 40% because of the 1977 notification. The correct position appears to be that the purpose and purport of the 1979 notification is to ensure that, in respect of the articles listed therein, the part should not suffer a higher duty than the whole. The 1980 notification likewise exempts this category of articles, which enjoy the benefit of the same or less duty on the part than that on the whole, from auxiliary duty." [Emphasis supplied] 16. In our view, the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case would be squarely applicable in the present case, though the facts are different. 17. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by this Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra), we accept this appeal; set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, Commissioner (Appeals) and that of the adjudicating authority and hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of the sum of Rs. 1,31,255/- but without any interest. Parties shall bear their own costs.