TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontent of the iron ore fines is 62% and below, Exemption Notification No. 62/2007- Customs dated 03.11.2007 applies and only an export duty of Rs. 50/MT has to be paid. The respondent herein filed Shipping Bill No.25 dated 04.07.2007 for export of 42.05 WMT of iron ore fines on payment of duty @ Rs. 50/MT. The samples of the iron ore fines were sent for testing and based on the chemical examiner's report, the Asst. Commissioner, Customs, Kakinada passed the Order-in-Original demanding the differential customs duty of Rs. 1,05,12,500/- as test report from CRCL showed the iron content to be 62.52% i.e., above 62%. On appeal, the first appellate authority passed the impugned order setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iron content has been taken on wet basis or on dry basis. It is his submission that there can be a significant difference in the iron ore content depending upon how the iron ore is tested. It has been established that iron ore content must be determine on wet basis and not on dry basis as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggrawal [1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC)] which was followed in the subsequent decisions. CBEC has also issued Circular No.4/2012 dated 17.02.2012 in which it was clarified " that for the purpose of charging of export duty the assessment of iron ore for determination of Fe content shall be made on Wet Metric Ton (WMT) basis which in other words means deducting weight of impurities (incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the payment has been made basing on the test results at the destination port." 3. Therefore, he argued that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Taurion Iron & Steel Company Pvt Ltd (supra) squarely applies to their case and it has been rightly applied by the first appellate authority while deciding the order in their favour. 4. Learned Commissioner (AR) submits that the first appellate authority has wrongly set aside the demand confirmed by the original authority relying upon the test reports whose samples were not drawn in the presence of the departmental officers as well as the exporters. Of the two samples, one is drawn and tested outside the jurisdiction of India by the Chinese authorities while the other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d it was denied by the Revenue and this rejection was seen as denial of principles of natural justice. Such is not the case here. It is her submission that the Exemption Notification No.62/2007-Customs is an exception to the general rule and hence should be strictly construed against the respondent. There is nothing in the test report of the chemical examiner which shows that iron content in the test report of CRCL is on dry basis. It also does not indicate that it is on wet basis. Therefore, in this case, the benefit of doubt should go against the respondent who are claiming the benefit of the notification as has been held by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Dilip Kumar & Co and others ....