CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 09 BOM CK 0033

Commr. of Cus. (I), Jnch, Nhava Sheva vs Madhu Sudan Metals

Bombay High Court · Decided on 1 September 2010 · Citation: (2011) 266 ELT 334 : (2012) 25 STR 276

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.C. Daga, J · R.M. Savant, J
CASE NUMBER
Customs Appeal No. 66 of 2006 with C.A. No. 68 of 2006
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

Perused Appeals.

2.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

3.

This Appeal is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20th December 2005 [2006 (205) E.L.T. 311 (Tribunal)]. The Appeal was admitted by an order dated 3rd August 2006 to consider following substantial question of law :

Whether the Tribunal should have permitted mutilation of the goods concerned without payment of the redemption fine in the teeth of a clear contrary devision of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Hardik Industrial Corporation, ?

4.

Having heard the parties, it appears that the Appeal was decided by the Tribunal based on the following concession given by the Advocate/representative appearing for the Respondent.

Both sides confirm that rules have been made permitting mutilation of steel sheets etc. Both sides also confirm that there is no restriction in the rules made u/s 24 regarding category of importers.

5.

Both the parties agree that no rules have been framed permitting the mutilation of stainless steel sheets. It is, therefore, clear that the concession given by the representative appearing for the department with regard to the applicability of the rules and/or framing of the rules was a wrong concession. The entire order revolves around it. The impugned order is mainly based on the concession given by the representative appearing for the Respondents. In the above circumstances, both parties agree that matter be remitted back for reconsideration afresh ignoring the concession given by the representative appearing for the Respondents.

6.

In the result impugned order is set aside and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh on its own merits by reasoned order following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal is expected to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

7.

Both the Appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order with no order as to costs.