Legal principle

An exemption notification must be construed on its plain wording—no words or conditions not used in it can be read in, and where it ex facie applies, its benefit cannot be denied by importing restrictions from another column or from a later, prospective amendment.

Court decision

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, holding that the imported MEG Reclamation Plant was covered by S.No.404 of the notification and entitled to the exemption.

Facts

M/s Reliance Industries Ltd imported a Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Reclamation Plant in un-assembled condition under 10 Bills of Entry (03.01.2023 to 17.06.2024), classified under CTH 84198990 and claiming exemption under S.No.404 of Notification No. 52/2017-Cus (List 33, 'Equipment/Units for specialized services meant for Offshore and Onshore Petroleum Operations'). The department disputed the exemption, so the goods were cleared provisionally on payment of duty at merit rate under protest. The Adjudicating Authority (Assistant Commissioner, Kakinada) denied the exemption, holding that the specific entry for MEG Reclamation & Regeneration equipment inserted by Notification No. 30/2024-Cus w.e.f. 24.07.2024 could not operate retrospectively and that column 2 of List 33 restricted the scope. The Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, set aside that order, and the department appealed to CESTAT Hyderabad.

Key provisions

• Section 5, The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Levy and collection.
• Section 3(12), Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty, sales tax, local taxes and other charges
• Section 25(1), Customs Act, 1962 — Power to grant exemption from duty