Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Food Corporation Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 27 May, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(12)ECR613(TRI.-DELHI), 1987(30)ELT963(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. The appellants M/s Food Corporation of India Ltd. imported by s.s. Buchenstain one case of spares for Bullar machine under bill of entry Cash No. 3112 of 13-4-1981. Duty charged therefor and collected was Rs. 89,176.69 paise. Subsequently they filed a refund claim for Rs. 58,366.91 paise, the ground claim being mentioned therein as "excess duty charged on replaced parts". This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 31-5-1982. He had that the appellants had claimed replacement of the goods free of duty in terms of notification 80/70 Cust dated 29.8.1970 but that as the goods imported were clearances for wrongly supplied goods and not replacement for defective goods the notification did not apply. The appellants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under order dated 23.12.1982. He pointed out that as against the originally supplied goods on which duty of Rs. 30,809.78 paise had been paid but the same had been subsequently got back on re-export and therefore when the new consignment came (the subject goods) they were to be necessarily assessed on merits and therefore there was no case made out for refund of the difference between the amount of duty collected now and the amount of duty collected earlier. It is against the said order that the present appeal has been filed.
2. We have heard Shri DM. Mehta Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar for the Deptt.
3. Under letter dated 29.4.1987 the appellants had enclosed what they have described as certain additional grounds to be urged in the appeal. In the said additional grounds it has been pointed out that the appellants, who had conducted the proceedings before the lower authorities without legal assistance, had not putforward their case properly resulting in the lower authorities construing the claim as if the same was under notification 80/70 Cus but that relief was to be granted under notification 281/76 as amended by subsequent notifications. Shri Metha contends that the mere fact that a wrong notification had evidently been putforward before the lower authorities should not deny relief to the appellants if they are able to establish that they are entitled to relief under the proper notification as now putforward. Shri Mehta points out that notification 80/70 would certainly not be applicable since the appellants were not claiming the right of clearance free of duty. He points out that on the assessment as made by the authorities under the headings mentioned in the bill of entry the entitlement for benefit of concessional duty under notification 281/76 as amended should have been considered, but had not been considered, by the lower authorities.
4. Since the case of the appellants appears to have been disposed of with reference to a notification which obviously did not apply to the facts of the case but the proper notification has now been put forward we hold that the matter has to be remitted, in the interests of justice, to the Assistant Collector so that he may look into the issue with reference to the claim now made and grant relief, if available, under the said notification.
5. Accordingly appeal is allowed, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector for adjudication afresh with reference to the claim for benefit under notification No. 281/76 as amended.