Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Custom Duty

CESTAT Allows Customs Exemption for MEG Reclamation Plant Under Notification 50/2017-Cus

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 13489
Case Name
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number
Premium Access
Date of Judgement/Order
Premium Access
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (CESTAT Hyderabad)

Summary: The appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada concerned the eligibility of a Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Reclamation Plant imported by Reliance Industries Ltd under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017.

The plant was imported in an unassembled condition through 10 Bills of Entry between 03.01.2023 and 17.06.2024 and classified under CTH 84198990. The imports were initially cleared on payment of customs duty under protest with provisional assessment. The dispute centred on Serial No. 404 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus and, particularly, Serial No. 4 of List 33, which described “Oil and Gas Rigs (Onshore) Petroleum and Gas well Drilling Machinery and Equipment/Units for specialized services for Offshore and Onshore petroleum operations” against tariff heading 8430. The department contended that the goods were required to fall within the tariff heading specified in column 2 of List 33 and that the subsequent insertion of a specific entry covering the relevant goods from 24.07.2024 demonstrated that the goods were not previously eligible. Reliance was also placed on the strict interpretation principle stated in CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company.

The respondent contended that Notification No. 50/2017-Cus required satisfaction of the description in column 3, the chapter/heading requirement in the main notification and the applicable conditions, and that the heading mentioned in List 33 was not exhaustive or controlling where it conflicted with the specific description. The Tribunal noted that the main notification refers to goods specified in column 3 of the relevant List and separately prescribes the chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item in column 2 of the main table. It found that the wider description of equipment or units for specialized services for offshore and onshore petroleum operations could not sensibly be confined to tariff heading 8430, which principally covers excavation, drilling, digging and similar machinery.

Want to Read the Complete Judgment?

You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.

Read on with Premium
Goes straight to payment. GST invoice included.

One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 23,861

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.