TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is required to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1,33,97,727/- being duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants imported 'Crude Palm Oil' and declared the same as 'Palmolein of Edible Grade in bulk (others). The samples were drawn and sent for testing. The Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade of Palmolein is at A.17.20 of Appendix B which has been extracted in Para 7 of the impugned order that shows the Acid value not more than 6.0. Since the test report of the P.H.O. indicates that the Acid Value to be 10.74. Therefore the item is held to be not fit for edible purposes. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in terms of the Notification, the item was refin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses the prayer and submits that the item imported was not purified edible grade palm oil, but it was adulterated. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly noted the criteria for classification in terms of Annexure B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which clearly specify the Acid Value should not be more than 6.0 while in the present case it is 10.74. She submits that even in terms of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n referred to by the learned SDR is not applicable to the present case. 4. On a careful consideration of the matter, we notice that both the authorities have examined the criteria required for classification of the edible and non-edible items in terms of Chapter Supplementary Note No. 1 of Chapter 15. The Chapter Supplementary Note No. 1 of Chapter 15 relies on Appendix-B to the Prevention....