TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting and inspection of the Bureau of Indian Standard and the same has not been done. In that circumstances, the classification arrived by the adjudicating authority is not acceptable, therefore, classification is declared by the appellant is accepted. Whether the goods are required to be mutilated as directed by the adjudicating authority? - HELD THAT:- As the reports of the Chartered Engineers are not acceptable and the goods declared by the appellant as scrap has been accepted. In that circumstances, the goods are none other than the scrap as declared by the appellant, therefore, the same are not required to be mutilated - in the absence of any rules framed for mutilation, the mutilation of the said goods cannot be allowed. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case redemption fine and penalty can be imposed on the appellant or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the declaration made by the appellant has been accepted. Moreover, the goods were not mis- declared and held to be scrap. In that circumstances, the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/61834/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60698/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for melting purposes. Since the manufacturer has mis-declared description of the goods with intent to evade payment of customs duty and the goods detained under panchnama. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand customs duty from the appellant, the goods are held liable for confiscation and the same are allowed to be cleared for home consumption after mutilation at the cost of the importer so as to render scrap, the clearance of the goods shall take place only after the goods are redeemed on payment of fine and the importer is liable to a penalty. The matter was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the order passed as mentioned hereinabove. The said order was challenged by the appellant before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that reports of the Chartered Engineers for change of classification are not admissible. It is his submissions that the findings of the Chartered Engineer (who are not the metallurgical engineer) were based on the visual examination without getting it tested from any BIS Recognised Laboratory. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s R.G. Gupta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, 1962, the goods cannot be ordered to the mutilated by the department. 8. Therefore, the goods are to be allowed to release and the impugned order is to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the impugned order and prayed that the authorities below has examined the issue and after considering the reports of the Chartered Engineers found that the goods in question are CRGO sheets and as the appellant has declared as scrap, therefore, they are required to be mutilated before release. 10. Heard the parties. 11. On careful consideration submissions made by both the sides, we find that the following issues emerges. (A) Whether the Chartered Engineer report is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case or not? (B) Whether the classification of the impugned goods has been done by the adjudicating authority correctly or not in the absence of any test report. (C) Whether the goods are required to be mutilated as directed by the adjudicating authority. (D) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case redemption fine and penalty can be imposed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Further in the case of M/s Marvel Agencies (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: We also note that the opinion of Chartered Engineer is based upon visual examination of the motors and same do not stand open to check out the contents and to find out efficiency of the motors. Such an opinion given on the basis of mere visual examination cannot be held to be binding. The Chartered Engineer also was not produced for cross-examination and as such his opinion cannot be given preference. We also take note of the fact that in the case of M/s Ocean Marketing (Supra), this Tribunal has further observed as under: Further, the submissions of the appellant recorded in the impugned order at Paragraph 7.3 (page 6) that Shri M.N. Mathur being a Civil Engineer, is not competent to furnish the report in the field of Metal and that the Department has influenced him for issuing the report, has not been addressed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). On the contrary, the earlier reports furnished by the experts in the field of metals have been discarded by the Department for assessment of the Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
