AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant imported 41.363 MT of HMS Scrap vide invoice No. 2010-06-15/112 dated 15.06.2010 from Canada and filed Bill of Entry No. 2123393 dated 28.07.2010 thereto at ICD, Ludhiana under first check. Further, the appellant vide letter dated 26.07.2010 requested customs that first check be allowed as seller had informed that goods sent were purchased in auction of kettle/thermal plant and due to high cost of cutting & labour charges, same are sent as such. The appellant further stated in their letter that if items do not conform to description of scrap, mutilation of same may kindly be allowed under Section 24 of Customs Act and undertook to bear the cost of mutilation. The Ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, CFS Ludhiana denied the firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same, hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that the goods imported were purchased on "as is where is basis" by the appellant and the customs has sought opinion of Chartered Engineer Sh. Rajesh John, who in his report dated 16.10.2010 stated that machines appeared as not reconditioned; the machines appeared to have been lifted on "as is where is basis" and machines were 20-50 years old, expected residual life of the mach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Commissioner of Customs 2006 (205) ELT 311. 4.3 Ld. Counsel further submits that the appellant earlier imported similar goods i.e. 187.12 MT heavy melting scrap by 8 containers covered vide bill of entry No. 2084168 dated 15.06.2010 through CFS, Ludhiana and same were seized. The present consignment covered by BOE No. 2123393 dated 28.07.2010 was part of the earlier consignment as stated by Sh. Inder Kumar prop. in his statement dated 22.10.2010 and the same is mentioned in para 6 of the show cause notice also. He further submits that in the earlier consignment, the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2011 ordered classification of the goods as referred in para 3 of show cause notice and demanded the custom duty o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant (cited supra), we find that in the present case, appellant imported 41.363 MT of HMS Scrap from Canada and filed Bill of Entry No. 2123393 dated 28.07.2010 at ICD, Ludhiana under first check. Further, the appellant vide letter dated 26.07.2010 requested the custom to give first check and appellant has also requested that if the goods do not confirm to description of scrap, then mutilation of the same may be allowed under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962 at their cost, but the Ld. Asstt. Commissioner denied the first check and the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.08.2010 directed the Asstt. Commissioner, Ludhiana to accept to request of the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sought first check also which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner but was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals); the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been complied and we do not find any reason for not complying with the same wherein the Commissioner has directed the lower authority to allow the first check, in spite of that Revenue proceed to issue the show cause notice. 9. Here it is pertinent to mention that the appellant before the disputed consignment also filed Bill of Entry No. 2084168 dated 15.06.2010 of similar goods imported from the same supplier as heavy melting scrap of 187.12 MT by 8 containers. It is a fact that the present consignment is also imported from the same seller and also of the same plant pur....