New Standard Engineering Company Limited, Bombay Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay
1. The appellants imported a precision jig boring machine with numerical control. They claimed the benefit of an Exemption Notification dated 1-3-1978, whereunder the following was exempted from customs duty in excess of 25% ad valorem, "Tool room precision optical coordinate jig boring machine, including numerical control". The claim was rejected. The appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed. The revision petition ed before the Central Government was transferred to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upon its establishment. The Tribunal rejected the same. Hence this appeal 2. The aforesaid exemption is available to a tool room precision boring machine which is fitted with an optical coordinate. It is available to such a machine even if it has a numerical control. The appellants imported a machine which included a numerical control but did not contain the optical coordinate. It was upon this basis that the exemption claimed by the appellant was refused 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the numerical control, which is computerised, is of far greater efficiency than the optical coordinate. What the appellants imported, therefore, was a more advanced and effective machine and it was entitled to the benefit of the exemption. The order of the Collector of Customs recognised that a numerical control was more effective than an optical device. It was an absurd reading of the notification to require that the machine should be fitted with not only the optical device but also with the numerical control 4. The notification extends the exemption to a machine which is fitted with an optical device. It makes it clear that the exemption would be available even if such machine, fitted with the optical device, is also fitted with a numerical control. There is no absurdity in the notification. There is nothing which requires us to read the notification otherwise than as it plainly reads. The view taken by the Tribunal and the authorities below is correct
0[ds]4. The notification extends the exemption to a machine which is fitted with an optical device. It makes it clear that the exemption would be available even if such machine, fitted with the optical device, is also fitted with a numerical control. There is no absurdity in the notification. There is nothing which requires us to read the notification otherwise than as it plainly reads. The view taken by the Tribunal and the authorities below is correct
### Instruction:
Predict whether the case will result in an affirmative (1) or negative (0) decision for the appeal, and then provide a thorough explanation using key sentences to support your prediction.

### Input:
1. The appellants imported a precision jig boring machine with numerical control. They claimed the benefit of an Exemption Notification dated 1-3-1978, whereunder the following was exempted from customs duty in excess of 25% ad valorem, "Tool room precision optical coordinate jig boring machine, including numerical control". The claim was rejected. The appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed. The revision petition ed before the Central Government was transferred to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upon its establishment. The Tribunal rejected the same. Hence this appeal 2. The aforesaid exemption is available to a tool room precision boring machine which is fitted with an optical coordinate. It is available to such a machine even if it has a numerical control. The appellants imported a machine which included a numerical control but did not contain the optical coordinate. It was upon this basis that the exemption claimed by the appellant was refused 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the numerical control, which is computerised, is of far greater efficiency than the optical coordinate. What the appellants imported, therefore, was a more advanced and effective machine and it was entitled to the benefit of the exemption. The order of the Collector of Customs recognised that a numerical control was more effective than an optical device. It was an absurd reading of the notification to require that the machine should be fitted with not only the optical device but also with the numerical control 4. The notification extends the exemption to a machine which is fitted with an optical device. It makes it clear that the exemption would be available even if such machine, fitted with the optical device, is also fitted with a numerical control. There is no absurdity in the notification. There is nothing which requires us to read the notification otherwise than as it plainly reads. The view taken by the Tribunal and the authorities below is correct

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
4. The notification extends the exemption to a machine which is fitted with an optical device. It makes it clear that the exemption would be available even if such machine, fitted with the optical device, is also fitted with a numerical control. There is no absurdity in the notification. There is nothing which requires us to read the notification otherwise than as it plainly reads. The view taken by the Tribunal and the authorities below is correct
