Clerical error in exemption declaration did not defeat concessional duty benefit where the intended notification was clear.

A wrong notification number in a Rule 173B declaration did not defeat entitlement to the concessional duty benefit where the surrounding facts showed the intended exemption was clear. The assessee had already been availing the relevant exemption, and the incorrect reference to Notification No. 9/98-C.E. instead of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. was treated as a clerical mistake. On that basis, the benefit under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. was maintained and denial of the exemption was held unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. despite mentioning a wrong notification number in the declaration filed under Rule 173B.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee showed that it had been availing the benefit of the relevant exemption for the earlier period. The reference in the declaration to Notification No. 9/98-C.E. instead of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. was treated as an inadvertent mistake, particularly because the declaration would have no relevance unless it was intended for the later notification. The Revenue did not dispute that the assessee was otherwise ineligible for the benefit merely because of the incorrect reference. On the totality of the facts, the incorrect mention of the notification number was held to be a clerical error and not a ground to deny the benefit.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/99-C.E.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the exemption benefit maintained in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A wrong reference to an exemption notification in a declaration does not disentitle an assessee to the benefit where the surrounding facts show that the intended notification was clear and the mistake is only clerical.

---