Concessional duty on nylon filament yarn can be denied on the assessee's own test report, with extended limitation for mis-declaration.

An assessee's own test report may be relied upon to determine eligibility for concessional duty where it shows that the denier of nylon filament yarn exceeded the permissible tolerance limit and no contrary material rebuts that result. On that basis, duty was correctly confirmed without requiring separate departmental samples. Where the assessee knowingly cleared goods at a concessional rate despite exceeding the tolerance limit and mis-declared the clearance particulars, the extended period of limitation was invokable and penalty was justified for duty evasion. The demand, limitation, and penalty were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty on nylon filament yarn could be confirmed on the basis of the assessee's own packing reference/test report without drawing departmental samples. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were sustainable on the facts found.

Issue (i): Whether duty on nylon filament yarn could be confirmed on the basis of the assessee's own packing reference/test report without drawing departmental samples.

Analysis: The assessee's own test records showed that the denier of the nylon filament yarn exceeded the permissible tolerance limit of 4%. In the absence of any contrary material showing that the assessee's test report was incorrect, the report could be relied upon. The criterion for concessional or full duty was the denier, and where the assessee itself had conducted the test for its own purposes, that result could not be ignored merely because the Department had not drawn separate samples.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was correctly confirmed on the basis of the assessee's own test report.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were sustainable on the facts found.

Analysis: The finding recorded was that the assessee was aware that the tolerance limit had been exceeded, yet cleared the goods at the concessional rate by mis-declaring the particulars in the clearance documents. On that basis, the longer limitation period was invokable. The penalty was also upheld as the mis-declaration resulted in duty evasion, and the amount imposed was not excessive having regard to the duty involved.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation and the penalty were sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed in full, and the duty demand with penalty was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee's own test report showing non-eligibility for concessional duty can be relied upon absent rebuttal, and deliberate mis-declaration of clearance particulars justifies invocation of the extended period and penalty.

---