9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed merely the mutilation of the goods. Appeal allowed and matter remanded to the Tribunal for being heard and disposed of on merits, uninfluenced by the judgment and order that we have set aside. - 10411-13 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 10-12-1997 - S.P. Bharucha and A.P. Misra, JJ. [Judgment per : S.P. Bharucha, J.]. - The Revenue is in appeal from an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. 2.The respondent filed, for clearance for home consumption, seven Bills of Entry purporting to relate to polyethylene scrap. By reason of intelligence received that serviceable material was likely to be cleared by the respondent as scrap, the goods covered by the seventh Bill of Entry were examined by the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The Tribunal observed that the purpose of the said provision was to ensure that where imported goods had more than one purpose, they were rendered unfit for use except for one purpose. In other words, the Tribunal said, where imported goods could be used as scrap or as serviceable material, it should be open to an importer who contended that the import was only for use as scrap to seek mutilation so that the goods could be used only as scrap and not as serviceable material. The Tribunal referred to the practice of permitting mutilation of serviceable garments which were claimed to have been imported as rags. The Tribunal was satisfied that the same procedure could be followed in the instant case, notwithstanding that rules had not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides of the import. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in invoking Section 24 and basing its judgment upon it. 7.The point of time at which the respondent made the offer of mutilation is relevant. If, at the very outset, the respondent had asked for mutilation of the goods, that might have been a different matter. The Collector's order suggests that it did not. It sought to clear the goods. It was only upon the examination of the seventh container that it was noticed that a part of what it contained was serviceable material. If that be so, the respondent's offer of mutilation was made only after the offence had been discovered. 8.The order of the Tribunal does not discuss the merits of the case. It doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
