TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (5) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruary or March 1989. The bill of entry for the consignment was presented by the appellant on 19th March, 1989. The benefit of Notification 267/89-Cus., dated 1-11-1989 was claimed. This Notification extends concessional rate of duty to stamping foils less than 6" width. After the bill of entry was presented, various queries were raised as to the width of the foils. The appellant furnished a reply. The examination of stamping foils showed that except for one packing, the rest exceeded 6" width. A show cause notice was issued alleging evasion of duty by the appellant by mis-declaring width of the stamping foils and proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The Collector, after considering the reply, as also the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llector had wrongly denied this request, one of the questions in its appeal involves the rate of duty, and therefore, this Bench had the jurisdiction. 3. Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR opposing this stand argued that request for mutilation did not cite in provisions of Section 24 of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant had before the Collector had passed this order made a request for clearance of goods after mutilation at the concessional rate. The Collector in his order has not conceded the request. This is one of the issues being agitated before us. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is the appropriate Bench for deciding the issue; we note that the same conclusion had also been arrived at earl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording to him, the appellant ought to have been given permission to cut the foils and clear them at the lower rate of duty. Case law was also cited by Shri Asthana. 6. Shri Sharad Bhansil, learned SDR argued that there was no evidence to show that any letter had been filed by the appellant on 30th March, 1990 for mutilation. He further, pointed out that the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification 267/89 on a bill of entry, thus in effect saying that the width of the foils was 6" or less. This amounted to misdeclaration. He argued that the question of mutilation of goods would arise if the goods were capable of being used for more than one purposes. This condition had not been satisfied and the provisions of Section 24 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Assistant Collector, the appellant has said "Generally foils' sizes vary from 1" to 22". Examination of goods is requested. Along with the request if any of the foils exceeds 6", the foil may be cut to size in order to avail the benefit of notification". The Collector in his Order had considered this aspect. He dismissed the request for mutilation only on the ground that it was made after investigation commenced. 9. Neither the invoice nor the bill of entry has stated that the stamping foils are below 6" width. The Department's claim for misdeclaration is solety based on the fact that the benefit of notification was claimed. A claim for the benefit of a notification by itself would not amount to misdeclarati....