Skip to content


Nav Bharat Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC806DTri(Delhi)
AppellantNav Bharat Corporation
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....doubt that the goods are duly covered by the notification. the department's representative, however, raised an objection during the hearing that the original claim of the appellants before the assistant collector was under notification no. 1/72-cus. and that the appellants were not entitled to change their claims later to a different notification. we find no force in this objection. in substance, the appellants' claim remains the same, viz., re-assessment @ 40% customs duty. citing of a wrong notification in the original claim and its subsequent correction by citing the correct notification do not convert the claim into a fresh claim. wrong citation of the tariff item, notification, rule or section can be corrected at any stage so long as the nature and substance of the claim does not.....
Judgment:
2. The appellants seek the benefit of exemption notification No.147/58-Cus. in respect of Hygain Antenna System for Telecommunication Equipment imported by them. Their claim was rejected by the Appellate Collector on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish that the goods were specially designed as components of wireless transmission apparatus in terms of the notification. Along with their revision application (now the subject appeal before us), the appellants sent the relevant catalogue which states, inter alia, that the unique design characteristics of the subject antenna provide reliable high power capabilities for communications over short, medium and long range distance point to point circuits. There is thus no doubt that the goods are duly covered by the notification. The Department's representative, however, raised an objection during the hearing that the original claim of the appellants before the Assistant Collector was under notification No. 1/72-Cus. and that the appellants were not entitled to change their claims later to a different notification. We find no force in this objection. In substance, the appellants' claim remains the same, viz., re-assessment @ 40% customs duty. Citing of a wrong notification in the original claim and its subsequent correction by citing the correct notification do not convert the claim into a fresh claim. Wrong citation of the tariff item, notification, rule or section can be corrected at any stage so long as the nature and substance of the claim does not change and the appellants do not ask for any higher amount of refund than originally claimed. We find further in this case that the Appellate Collector had already considered the appellants' claim under notification No. 147/58-Cus. The Department's objection being untenable and the claim being admissible on merits, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //