9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, for respondent Per: P.G. Chacko This appeal by the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent and dropping the proposals contained in the relevant show-cause notice. The respondent had imported two consignments of goods described as stainless steel scrap 304 grade and filed two bills of entry, one on 10.8.2001 and the other on 13.8.2001, for clearance thereof at the concessional tariff rate of duty as applicable to S.S. steel scrap falling under Heading 72.04 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. On second-check examination conducted by the docks staff, the goods were found to be not stainless steel scrap. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114A of the Act. The show-cause notice, accordingly, demanded duty of over Rs.65 lakhs from the respondent under Section 28 of the Act and proposed to confiscate the goods and to impose penalty. In a reply to the show-cause notice, the party denied the allegations and contested the demand of duty and other proposals. They asserted that they had imported re-melting scrap only and, in a gesture of expression of bona fides, offered mutilation of the goods and/or clearance of the goods under bond with obligation to submit certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise officer regarding the end-use of the goods (re-melting). The respondent also questioned the reliability of the examination reports dated 7.1.2002 and 4.3.2002. They wanted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is further submitted that the offer of mutilation of the goods was made by the respondent, belatedly, after receipt of the show-cause notice. Such an offer coming from the respondent after their offence of misdeclaration was detected by the investigating agency (SIIB) was without bona fides. In this connection, the learned SDR relied on CC, Bombay vs. Hardik Industrial Corporation 1998 (97) ELT 25 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the point of time at which an offer of mutilation was made by the importer was relevant and that such an offer made after the offence had been discovered was not liable to be accepted for want of bona fides. The learned SDR also refers to Note 8(a) to Section XV of HSN and submits that any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
