EOU Exemption Not Affected by Classification or IGCR Lapse

Centax Editorial Board

February 25, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: M.S.S. India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (NS-III), Raigad (2026) 38 Centax 322 (Tri.-Bom)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

S/Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (J) & Member (T) C J MATHEW
Shri Ashwini Kumar, Adv., for the Appellant.
Shri Ranjan Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant-assessee, an export-oriented unit holding a letter of permission and undertaking to comply with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, imported goods and self-assessed them as copper bus bars classifiable under Tariff Item 7407 10 30 of the Customs Tariff while claiming exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-03-2003. The department reassessed the goods, alleging that they were not bars but parts used in the manufacture of switch gears classifiable under Tariff Item 8538 90 00, and further contended that the imported goods were end products not capable of being used as raw materials for manufacture as required under the EOU scheme. It was also alleged that there was a violation of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, and, on that basis, the exemption was proposed to be denied, and duty recovery was initiated. The importer contended that the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962, did not have jurisdiction under the 2017 Rules to recover duty on the ground of non-eligibility for any reason. The adjudication order, however, upheld the claim of the department and sustained the denial of exemption, leading to the filing of an appeal. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that, under the EOU scheme, the classification of imported goods is not relevant for determining the exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus (supra). It explained that the exemption can be denied only in specific situations, such as when the goods are excluded in the notification, are not connected with the goods mentioned in the letter of permission, or are not used in manufacture. The tribunal further stated that the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, are procedural and mainly facilitate the exemption process. It clarified that whether the goods were assessed under Tariff Item 7407 10 30 or Tariff Item 8538 90 00 did not affect the exemption eligibility in this case. The tribunal therefore held that the adjudicating authority could not reopen or revisit the assessment merely because of alleged procedural non-compliance with the 2017 Rules. The appeal was accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee.