https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107616 Classification of rubber channels based on a chemical examiner's report was challenged because the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to test and rebut the material before the appellate authority. The report did not atively establish that the goods were vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber; it referred to elongation and recovery characteristics under Chapter 40 notes but did not state that sulphur or any other vulcanising agent had been used. On that basis, a retest by the Central Laboratory was considered justified, and the classification order was set aside for fresh determination after proper testing and rebuttal opportunity. en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:34:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107616 Classification of rubber channels based on a chemical examiner's report was challenged because the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to test and rebut the material before the appellate authority. The report did not atively establish that the goods were vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber; it referred to elongation and recovery characteristics under Chapter 40 notes but did not state that sulphur or any other vulcanising agent had been used. On that basis, a retest by the Central Laboratory was considered justified, and the classification order was set aside for fresh determination after proper testing and rebuttal opportunity. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107616