2013 (10) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ernment 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 impugne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence of the customs authorities. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The main contention of the DR is that Section 24 of the Customs Act. 1962, provides for mutilation. But, there is no rules prescribed by the Central Government for mutilation of HMS and therefore, the allowing of mutilation of the goods by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper. He relies upon the decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X