ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Although there is a request for adjournment from the appellant’s Counsel Shri A.S. Sunderajan on account of his pre-occupation, we are unable to acceed to the request because a number of adjournments have already been given in this case and the matter is as old as 1991. Accordingly, we have heard the ld. JDR Shri S.N. Ojha for the Revenue. We have also gone through the impugned order as well as the appeal memo filed by the appellants herein.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :-
2. The appellant’s herein took diesel gear cutters for tin-plating outside the country and then reimported the same. The appellants produced a certificate from DGTD for release of the goods in terms of Notification No. 204/76 but the claim of the appellant, under the said notification was not accepted by the lower original authority on the ground that the said notifications speaks of ‘repairs’ being carried outside. But present case is not one of repairs but it is one of technological upgradation inasumch as the imported diesel gear cutters had been tin-plated outside and not sent for repairs. Hence, this appeal before the Tribunal.
3. On going through the memo of appeal, we find that the appellants have now claimed the benefit of Notification No. 209-Cus., dated 25-10-1958 instead of their earlier claim relating to Notification No. 204/76-Cus. Ld. JDR has raised this plea that the appellants did not claim the benefit of this notification at any earlier stage and therefore the appellants should not be allowed to stake claim for a new notification at this stage. We do not agree with this submission of the ld. JDR. There is no estoppel in law in claiming the benefit of another Notification provided it is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, we agree with the submission of the ld. JDR that the matter is fit for remand inasmuch as the authorities below have not taken any view on this claim of the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and send the matter to the adjudicating authority namely Commissioner of Customs, Sahar Airport, Bombay for readjudication to examine the claim of the appellant under Notification No. 269-Cus. (sic) dated 25-10-1958. Appeal is thus, allowed by remand.