Denial of rebuttal to chemical test report and disputed sample testing defeated the Revenue's challenge to the demand.

A demand based on a chemical examination report could not be sustained where the assessee was not supplied that report, retesting of samples had been sought, and part of the consignments remained untested. The appellate authority found that the adjudication rested on presumptions and assumptions. The Tribunal agreed that denial of an opportunity to rebut the laboratory report, despite it forming the basis of the show cause notice, undermined the Revenue's case. In the absence of cogent evidence displacing that finding, the Revenue's challenge failed and the appellate order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could succeed in its challenge to the appellate order when the demand was founded on a chemical examination report that was not furnished to the assessee, retesting of samples had been sought, and part of the consignments remained untested.

Analysis: The appellate authority had examined the consignments and found that the adjudication rested on presumptions and assumptions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given an opportunity to rebut the chemical laboratory report, though that report formed the basis of the show cause notice, and that a request for retesting had been made when the veracity of the report was disputed. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found no cogent evidence to dislodge the appellate authority's conclusion.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the appellate order was sustained.

---