Substantive customs exemption cannot be denied for wrong legal route when eligibility is undisputed.

A customs exemption under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. could not be denied merely because the assessee did not claim it in the Bill of Entry and later raised it under a different provision. The Tribunal applied the principle that substantive entitlement under law is not defeated by a mistaken legal route or by the absence of an initial express claim, particularly where eligibility for the exemption was not disputed by the Department. On that basis, the later claim was treated as maintainable and the reassessment order granting the notification benefit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could be denied the benefit of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. granting exemption from CVD merely because the benefit was not claimed at the time of filing the Bill of Entry and was asserted at a later stage under a different provision.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether a benefit otherwise available in law can be refused on the ground that the claim was made under the wrong provision or was not expressly made in the initial assessment proceedings. The Tribunal applied the principle that substantive entitlement cannot be defeated by a mistaken legal route, and treated the later claim for the customs notification benefit as comparable to a claim made under an incorrect provision. Since the Department did not dispute the assessee's eligibility for the exemption, the distinction sought to be drawn from the earlier precedent was held to be immaterial.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the notification benefit, and the order granting reassessment was upheld.

---