9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 628 - AT - CustomsApplication for Stay of Operation or order assessee imported Heavy Melting Scrap Confiscation of Goods Redemption Fine Held that - Revenue contended that Section 24 of the Customs Act. 1962, provides for mutilation - But there was no rules prescribed by the Central Government for mutilation of HMS and therefore, the allowing of mutilation of the goods by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not legal and proper - Relying upon Sri Tirupathi Plastics Vs. UOI and others 1992 (3) TMI 352 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - case laws cited by both sides and the matter was an arguable one, which will be decided at the time of appeal hearing at length - stay of operation of the impugned order was allowed Stay Petition allowed.
Issues:
Stay of operation of impugned order regarding import of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) which was found to be secondary steel pipes of various lengths. Analysis: The Revenue filed an application for stay of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the import of 518.38 MTs of HMS, which were discovered to be secondary steel pipes. The original authority had confiscated the goods and imposed fines and penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and directed the release of goods after ensuring mutilation at the respondents' cost in the presence of customs authorities. The main contention raised by the DR was regarding the legality of allowing mutilation of goods under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962, as there were no rules prescribed by the Central Government for mutilation of HMS. The DR relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in a previous case. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate argued that the goods were intended for use in their factory and cited relevant Tribunal cases supporting their position. After hearing both sides and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found the matter to be arguable, indicating it would be decided at the appeal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay of the impugned order's operation and scheduled the appeal hearing for a specific date. The stay petition filed by the Revenue was allowed, and the order was dictated and pronounced in open court.
|
