TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... [Order]. - In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority regarding confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty as detailed therein, on the appellants. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 3. The record sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., requested the I.I.T., Kanpur for retest of all the samples. They also made similar request to the adjudicating authority for getting the samples re-tested, during the adjudicating proceedings. The record also shows that the re-test report was submitted by the I.I.T., Kanpur on 7-6-2002 after carrying G.C.M.S. test. In that report, it was opined that the samples were not of Sandal Wood Oil but of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Department. He had justified the correctness of his second test report dated 7-6-2002, after carrying out the GCMS test and according to his report, the samples were not of the Sandal Wood Oil. On receipt of his report, no attempt was made by the Revenue to get the samples tested from any other independent laboratory. Therefore, the second test report of the laboratory officer of the I.I.T., Ka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods, was Aromatic Chemical. 4. The goods had been received by the appellants under the cover of invoice No. 94 dated 26-9-2001 of M/s. Sanjay Laxman Gaikwar, Maharashtra. These goods were manufactured and cleared by the said firm, as even alleged in show cause notice. Earlier to this also, the said firm cleared the goods in favour of the appellants as alleged in para 9 of the show cause not....