Exemption under customs notification cannot be denied merely because a complete plant arrived in multiple consignments.

An exemption notification cannot be denied by implying a condition that the goods must be imported in a single consignment when no such restriction is expressly stated. Where a second-hand plant was imported in multiple consignments for logistical convenience, was ultimately installed, and no attempt to evade the law was shown, clubbing of consignments could not be refused merely because the items arrived under different Bills of Entry. The demand for differential duty based on denial of the exemption was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. could be denied on the ground that the second-hand plant was imported in multiple consignments under different Bills of Entry; (ii) Whether the goods were required to be assessed only as presented so as to exclude clubbing of consignments for the purpose of claiming exemption.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. could be denied on the ground that the second-hand plant was imported in multiple consignments under different Bills of Entry.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to the machinery specified in the relevant list, and no further condition requiring import in a single consignment was found in the notification. The plant was ultimately found to have been installed and the installation certificates were submitted. The separate consignments were imported for convenience of packing and transportation, and the record did not show any attempt to evade law or to defeat a restriction by fragmenting the import.

Conclusion: The denial of the exemption on the ground of split consignments was not sustainable and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were required to be assessed only as presented so as to exclude clubbing of consignments for the purpose of claiming exemption.

Analysis: The facts were distinguished from cases where fragmentation was used to avoid legal restrictions. Here, provisional assessment had been adopted by the Department itself to verify that the imported items, when assembled, satisfied the notification entry, and the installation condition was fulfilled. In these circumstances, the method of import did not justify treating the goods as ineligible for exemption merely because they arrived under different Bills of Entry.

Conclusion: The Department could not refuse exemption by insisting that the entire plant must be imported under one Bill of Entry, and the assessee succeeded on this issue as well.

Final Conclusion: The demand for differential duty based on denial of the exemption was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification cannot be denied by reading into it a condition not expressly stipulated, and where a complete machine is imported in multiple consignments for logistical convenience without any attempt to circumvent the law, exemption cannot be refused merely because the import was not made under a single Bill of Entry.

---