JUDGMENT - S.K. DESAI, J.:---In this petition, the petitioner who is the proprietor of Messrs Vijay Studio has impugned the legality and correctness of two orders dated 21st May, 1969 and 30th May, 1969 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs which orders were subsequently confirmed in appeal and in revision by the respective authorities. 2. A few facts may be stated as under : The petitioners studio is at Gola Lane, Dr. D.N. Road, Bombay 1. The petitioner is inter alia the manufacturer of "Electronic Flash Guns", which are attachments to be attached to cameras. The petitioner in the firm name had imported 3539 pieces of International Silicon Rectifiers under Bill of Entry bearing Case No. 4211 dated 20th September, 1968. Similarly the petitioner had imported 5682 pieces of the very same item under bill of entry bearing Cash No. 625 dated 5th October, 1968. This import was pursuant to actual users import licence which had been granted to the petitioner on the basis of verification made by the Small Scale Industries Department, Government of Maharashtra. This Department had certified that the petitioner was using and was required to use the said rectifiers for the manufacture of electronic flash guns. It was the petitioners contention that there rectifiers imported by him were outside the ambit and scope of the Central Excise Tariff and were not chargeable with excise duty. However, this contention was not accepted by the Department of Central Excise and Customs which held that they were chargeable to excise duty at the rate of Rs. 1/- per piece. This was principally on the basis of a possible user mentioned in the advertising literature of the manufacturer of the said rectifiers (which were of Japanese origin) which literature mentioned that the said rectifiers were also capable of being used in F.M. Radios and T.V. sets. The petitioner raised several contention before the Department including the one that the Silicon Rectifiers imported by him were exempt from excise duty as per instructions contained in circular letter No. 1 F-35/1/68/CX/VII, dated 1st July, 1968, from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, addressed to all the Collectors of Central Excise. It appears that all these contentions which are indicated in para 2 of the petition were negatived and the petitioner was made to pay duty at the rate of Rs. one per piece, aggregating to Rs. 9,221/-. It appears that all these contentions which are indicated in para 2 of the petition were negatived and the petitioner was made to pay duty at the rate of Rs. one per piece, aggregating to Rs. 9,221/-. The petitioner thereafter supplied for refund of the excise duty wrongly charged and by the orders which are impugned in the petition, it was held that the original assessments were in order and the application was, therefore, rejected. The matter was carried further to the appellate Collector of Customs and by his orders dated 12th June, 1970 and 7th July, 1970 the second respondent rejected both the contentions. 3. Being aggrieved by these two orders of the respondent No. 2, the matter was carried further in revision to the Government of India and by the order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the revision application was rejected. 4. Copies of the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs are found annexed to the petition as Exhibit A. The orders deal with the petitioners claim for refund, which was on the footing that the goods should not have been subject to countervailing duty by reason of the orders contained in the notification earlier referred to which was one dated 1st July, 1968. According to the Assistant Collector of Customs, this notification was not applicable to the goods of the petitioner under the two bills of entry. The correctness of this conclusion will be required to be considered in this petition. But what is rather outstanding is that in the order of the appellate Collector of Customs, this contention of the petitioner which was at least dealt with by the Assistant Collector of Customs is not at all dealt with. It appears to me that the learned appellate Collector of Customs did not properly apply his mind to the contentions of the appellate before him despite a statement to the contrary in the orders, namely that the appellate Collector of Customs had carefully considered the appellants contentions. With respect, the orders show a total lack of care and attention which has resulted in the matter being carried in revision to the Department of Revenue and Insurance and thereafter to this Court for the petty amount of Rs. 9,221/-. With respect, the orders show a total lack of care and attention which has resulted in the matter being carried in revision to the Department of Revenue and Insurance and thereafter to this Court for the petty amount of Rs. 9,221/-. If at this stage the appellate Collector had properly and carefully applied his mind, much public time and money would not have been wasted in the manner it has been done. 5. It is this order of the appellate Collector of Customs which was carried further in revision and as the revisional order indicates these instructions of the Board dated 1st July, 1968 were clearly put before the revisional authority. The revisional authority unlike the appellate Collector of Customs has dealt with the instructions in the Boards circular letter dated 1st July, 1968 but with respect to the learned Officer who has dealt with the said circular, I am unable to follow what he means to say in his order. If at all any portion of that part of the revisional order can be followed, it would seem that the learned Officer, although he was of the rank of the joint Secretary has completely misdirected himself on what the circular provides. If one peruses the circular, it is clear and obvious that the circular was meant to provide for the type of case which was before the joint Secretary. 33-A was directed to be reasonably applied by the said circular. 33-AA as it then stood provided for a rate of duty Rs. one on transistors semi-conductors and diodes but as the entry indicates the duty was leviable on wireless sets, radiograms and parts thereof including electronic valves, transistors, semi-conductors and diodes. Obviously a difficulty would arise where valves, transistors or diodes (and similar imported electronic components) and which according to the importer were to be used not as parts of wireless sets etc., which was within the scope of 33-AA, but for other purposes, and a contention was raised that the import of such valves, transistors diodes etc., should not attract levy of duty. It is to meet such a situation that the circular directive has been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and it reads as follows : "It has been brought to the notice of Board that electronic tubes and transistors and semi-conductor diodes used in wireless receiving sets can and are also used in other electronic equipment sand that it is not possible to distinguish the parts used in wireless receiving sets from those used in other electronic equipment. According to tariff Item 33-AA only such parts as are parts of wireless receiving sets (including parts of transistors) are liable to duty. At the time of clearance it is not possible to know with certainty whether the parts declared to be intended for use in electronic equipment other than wireless receiving sets would actually be fitted in such equipment, duty free clearance should be allowed provisionally under Rule 9-B and confirmed later on that these parts are actually used in electronic equipment and not wireless sets". (underlying supplied). 6. I am unable to appreciate the reason why the Assistant Collector of Customs or the Joint Secretary in revision have been unable to understand this very simple circular which provides that where electronic valves, tubes, transistors, semi-conductor and diodes (or parts of transistors) are imported, which are capable of more than one type of use, duty free clearance will be allowed provisionally under Rule 9-B. It also provides for the second stage, namely, that subsequently the use should be verified. If the use is for the purpose of other than as part of wireless receiving sets (including as part of transistor radios) then the provisional free clearance should be confirmed, indicating clearly that if the use found ultimately is as part of wireless receiving sets or transistor radio sets, then the duty should be levied. This would clearly apply to all similar electronic items and not only to those specifically mentioned. 7. Now what were the facts before the three authorities who had decided against the petitioner. (1) That the petitioner was the proprietor of a photo studio recognised as a small scale manufacturer of electronic flash gun and for that purpose he had applied for all Imported Silicon Rectifies. (2) On paper, therefore, the purported use to be made by the petitioner was for a purpose other than as part of wireless receiving sets or transistor radio sets. (2) On paper, therefore, the purported use to be made by the petitioner was for a purpose other than as part of wireless receiving sets or transistor radio sets. If all these facts had been properly appreciated and the circular correctly understood which has not been done by the Assistant Collector and the revisional authority and totally ignored by the appellate Collector, it was clear that the petitioner was entitled to a provisional duty free clearance and that the respondents could have then insisted upon their right to verify subsequently the actual user as was provided in the circular. 8. In a number of cases under the Income Tax Act, this Court has held that such circulares issued by the Central Board are binding on the revenue authorities, even though they may go beyond the actual words of section or the rules or the tariff. Item 33-AA as it stood then would certainly seem to include within its compass electronic valves, tubes, transistors, rectified or semi-conductors diodes. Realising the intention that they duty was to be lived only as part of wireless receiving sets or transistors sets, the circular dated 1st July, 1968 was issued allowing for ultimate import free of duty of such items when they were to be used for a purpose other than in wireless receiving sets and transistors, i.e. for the type of electronic equipments for which the petitioner had imported the items. 9. If any of these authorities whose orders are impugned herein had applied mind to the proper facts and circumstances of the case and to the circular it is impossible that they could have arrived at the decision which they have arrived at. In this sense all the orders and totally perverse known to law, that is the decisions which no reasonable person invested with such powers could even have arisen. This was not a case where two views were possible and the authorities have arrived at one which does not appeal to the Court. Had it been the case of that type then perhaps the interference by the Court is not permissible. But, in my opinion, the approach revealed in the three impugned orders totally impermissible and one which will require interference under section 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the circular, the petitioner was entitled to clear the goods at the first stage and provisionally without payment of duty. But, in my opinion, the approach revealed in the three impugned orders totally impermissible and one which will require interference under section 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the circular, the petitioner was entitled to clear the goods at the first stage and provisionally without payment of duty. Thereafter, the actual user could have been verified by the respondents. After this lapse of time there is no purpose served in allowing this verification. Further on considering the entire gamut of facts and the reason for the import, no useful purpose would appear to be served by allowing such verification to be made at this juncture. To be precluded from verification is also a penalty which must be foisted on the 3rd respondents, for having collected the duty wrongly and having kept the amount for nearly 8 years and caused the petitioner the loss of interest on that amount. 10. In the result, the rule is made absolutely in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The refund is directed to be made to the petitioner by the appropriate authority on or before 31st October, 1977. Respondents will also pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition which costs would be quantified as per the rules. -----