2018 (7) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d February, 2003 and October, 2003 and cleared the goods at lower rates of duty by availing benefit of various exemption Notification. It is the case of the Revenue that the respondent had erroneously availed benefit of duty exemption by mis-declaring the goods. It has been alleged that the imported goods were tested for fruit juice contain, but on test, no fruit juice was found. Accordingly show cause notice was issued for denial of benefit of exemption Notification and consequent re-assessment of the Bills of Entry. The adjudicating authority re-assessed the Bills of Entries and demanded differential duty of Rs. 3,89,850/- along with interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on limitation. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el.)] 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We find that the department drew sample only in respect of 3(three) Bills of Entry and on that basis, demand was raised against all the Bills of Entry amounting to Rs. 3,89,850/-. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are reproduced for better appreciation of the facts:- "6. On going through the facts of the case, it is observed that the test results in respect of three bills of entry have been made applicable to all the bills of entry. The Tribunal in Vijeta International vs. CC [2006 (199) ELT 89 (Tri.-Mum)] has held that samples of three test reports cannot be made applicable to all consignments. I find that in the present case, the lower authority has ex....