TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether imported catalyst Petromax-MD was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, List 17, Serial No. 228 read with Item 45, as goods required for setting up of a crude petroleum refinery or for running, repair and maintenance of the goods specified in the list.
Analysis: The exemption entry covered goods specified in List 17 required for setting up of a crude petroleum refinery, and Item 45 extended to sub-assemblies, tools, accessories, protective coating and paint materials, stores, spares, materials, supplies and consumables for running, repairing or maintenance of the goods specified in the list. The imported catalyst was used as an input consumable in the production process and not for setting up the refinery. The earlier reasoning concerning post-setting-up use did not assist the appellant because the present claim still had to satisfy the specific language of Item 45. On the plain wording of the notification, the catalyst did not answer the description of goods used for running, repair or maintenance of the refinery plant.
Conclusion: The catalyst was not covered by the exemption and the denial of benefit was . The issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the imported catalyst did not fall within the scope of the claimed customs exemption.
Ratio Decidendi: A claimed exemption must fall strictly within the words of the notification, and a consumable used in production is not covered unless it is shown to be goods for setting up, running, repair or maintenance of the refinery as specifically described in the exemption entry.
TaxTMI 
