Notification benefit for textile imports cannot be denied for procedural lapse when actual use is proved.

Concessional duty under Notification No. 21/02 was available where imported spare parts were shown to have been used in the textile industry, even though the assessee had not claimed the benefit in the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal treated the notification's procedural requirement as directed to ensuring installation and actual use, not as a ground to deny the substantive concession when evidence of intended and actual use was produced. The revenue was expected to assess the claim on merits rather than reject it for procedural non-compliance. The notification benefit was therefore allowed and denial of concessional duty was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/02 dated 1-3-02 despite not claiming it at the time of filing the Bill of Entry and despite the alleged non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the spare parts were imported for use in the textile industry and that sufficient evidence had been produced to establish actual use for the intended purpose. The procedural requirement under the notification was treated as intended to ensure installation and use in the textile industry, not as a basis to deny the substantive concession where the factual use was established. The Tribunal held that the revenue ought to have examined the evidence on merits rather than reject the claim solely for procedural lapse. It also relied on an earlier identical decision granting the same notification benefit in similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification, and denial of the concessional duty on the ground of procedural non-claim was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---