M/S. Goel Sons vs C.C. Amritsar

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. ASR-CUSTOM-PVR-AAP-146-14-15 dated 17.07.2014 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Goel Sons .Appellants

Vs.

C.C. Amritsar .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 27.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51773/2015-CU(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for confiscation of the impugned goods under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act 1962. Consequently, imposing redemption fine and penalty on the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported MS Plate declaring the goods as MS Plates. The department conducted examination thereof and obtained test report from the Chartered Engineer who confirms that the goods have not been used previously for any purpose and also observed that 40-50% material is rusting which may be due to storage or environmental degradation. The goods were examined by metrological expert who also opined that it appears to be of prime type and these are unused but he also opined that goods appears to be of left out or production surplus. On the basis of this, it is been concluded by the department that goods are of secondary quality and used. Therefore, appellant has mis-declared the goods. Consequently, goods are liable for confiscation and redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me.

3. Heard the parties. Examined the records.

4. On examination of the records I find that both the Chartered Engineer as well as Metrological expert has opined that goods are unused. When goods are unused they are of the prime quality it cannot be disputed. Merely the goods were not used for a long time does not mean that goods have been used. In these circumstances, I hold that goods are not liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962. Consequently, redemption fine and penalty are not imposable.

5. In these terms, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

C/55025/2014-CU(SM)