<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798455</link>
    <description>Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant imported for offshore and onshore petroleum operations qualified for customs exemption under Serial No. 404 read with Serial No. 4 of List 33 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs during the pre-amendment period. Eligibility required the goods to fall within the tariff coverage in the main notification and meet prescribed conditions; List 33&#039;s reference to tariff heading 8430 did not independently restrict the wider description of specialised petroleum-service equipment. End-use certification supported this interpretation. A later specific entry for the plant operated prospectively and did not displace coverage under the existing general entry. The ambiguity rule favouring Revenue did not apply because the exemption provision was unambiguous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 08:42:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=921421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798455</link>
      <description>Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant imported for offshore and onshore petroleum operations qualified for customs exemption under Serial No. 404 read with Serial No. 4 of List 33 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs during the pre-amendment period. Eligibility required the goods to fall within the tariff coverage in the main notification and meet prescribed conditions; List 33&#039;s reference to tariff heading 8430 did not independently restrict the wider description of specialised petroleum-service equipment. End-use certification supported this interpretation. A later specific entry for the plant operated prospectively and did not displace coverage under the existing general entry. The ambiguity rule favouring Revenue did not apply because the exemption provision was unambiguous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>