TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has preferred the present appeal before this forum. Revenue has, however, not filed any appeal. 2. Heard Shri Akshit Malhotra, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue in virtual mode. 3. The primary contention of the appellant is that the order as to remanding the matter back to the file of the adjudicating authority by the first appellate authority was not in accordance with law and that based on the available materials, the Commissioner (Appeals) himself should have passed an order. The appellant has also filed a paper book containing synopsis and decisions of various higher judicial fora in support. 4.1 Brief facts that are relevant for our consideration are that the appellant imported two consignments of what was claimed by it as LAWS, which was sought to be cleared vide Bills-of-Entry dated 30.10.2018 and 12.11.2018 by classifying the same under CTH 2710 1990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 4.2 The Revenue chose to draw samples from each of the consignments and sent the same for testing, to the Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Tuticorin, who filed test reports dated 20.11.2018 and 21.12.2018 - c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stainable both in law and on facts. • Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the first appellate authority has, without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant in its appeal, blindly agreed with the findings of the adjudicating authority and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority. • Even otherwise, without prejudice to the aforesaid, the first appellate authority has no power vested with him under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 to remand the matter by citing the reason that the appellant had made fresh submissions and / or cited case laws. • Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that there is no dispute that CRCL, New Delhi is a competent authority to analyse the samples in all technical matters pertaining to classification. It is submitted that the appellant's challenge is limited to the conclusions and the readings arrived at by the CRCL in the Report and not on the competency of CRCL, which are two independent and distinct aspects. • Method of testing is decisive in determining the authenticity and veracity of a reading arrived at for a particular property/parameter. It w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Bloom on glass chimney ii. Colour (Saybolt) iii. Total Sulfur • Without prejudice to the above, the respondent has failed to appreciate that no evidence has been produced either in the Notice or in the adjudication order or even the impugned order to even suggest, let alone prove that the said parameters were met. • Assuming that IS 1459-2018 was applicable, still no reliance can be placed on the Test Report dated 11.02.2019. It is submitted that under IS 1459-2018, there are 10 parameters which are required to be tested and reported in order to confirm that the product in question is kerosene. • Without prejudice to the above, the first appellate authority has rejected the submissions made by the appellant regarding the unreliability of the CRCL Test Report citing certain vague and unspecific grounds. • Without prejudice to the above, the first appellate authority has completely erred in rejecting or discarding the appellant's submissions on the unreliability of the CRCL Test Report. • Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the End-Use certificates submitted by it have been ig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that disputed the declaration of the imported goods as LAWS under CTH 2710 1990. However, the initial burden, according to us, stood discharged once the opinion of an expert in the field was obtained by the Revenue. 11.2 Further, the appellant has also seriously objected to drawing of the samples and sending the same to CRCL, New Delhi before us, but however, we do not find any of such objections taken either at the first available opportunity i.e., drawing up of samples vide Mahazar dated 02.01.2019 or even at a later stage, while filing its reply to the Show Cause Notice. It is a different matter altogether that the appellant has objected to the report / expert opinion of CRCL, New Delhi. If we were to accept the above stand of the appellant and ignore the only available evidence, then there remains nothing other than an uncorroborated claim of the appellant as to classification of the goods in dispute under CTH 2710 1990 in its Bills-of-Entry, which do not lead us anywhere. 12.1 In the relied case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive), Jamnagar [2015 (320) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.)], the facts are slightly different i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers of the Tribunal makes for better appreciation of the record, but not its substitution. 5. The Revenue sought to make the said rings dutiable as asbestos articles. The affidavit evidence of a dealer in asbestos was of some relevance. So was the affidavit evidence that explained the character and use of the said rings. It was wrong of the Tribunal to find that the deponents of these affidavits were "not the right persons to give opinion on the type of the products" with which it was concerned. 6. Regretably, the Tribunal's order under appeal shows that it was not fully conscious of the dispassionate judicial function it was expected to perform, and it must be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal so that the evidence on record may be reappreciated. As we have stated, no evidence was led on behalf of the Revenue. There is, therefore, no good reason to remand the matter." 13. In the case on hand before us, the facts are the other way around i.e., having disputed the classification, the Revenue approached an expert and obtained the expert's opinion, whereas the appellant, having filed its Bills....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IBP- 141°C FBP 235C Percentage volume Recovered below 2000 = 60% Percentage volume Receved at 210°C 80% Flash point (Abel) = 44°c. Aromatic content = 11.85% a Onthe basis of the chove Tested parameters, the sample u/y meets the requirments as laid down inter is 1459-1974 For Kerosene seded Remont returred. 20.11.18 à¤à¤®. सयà¥à¤¯à¤¦ अगर सलीम M.SYED AKBAR SALEEM सहायतादन] ASST. CHEMICAL EXAMINER TR -20/11/2018 6. SURESH The a-1 / Cincal Examnar G-1 Custura loupe ages/Tuticorin Document 2 HEST REPORT hub als 18 712112118 MPULS. Av: 8803190/12.11.18 "The sample is in the form of colourless liquid. It is Composed of midline of mineral hychocarbon having mineral inychocarton Dil content is more than 70% • Volume. Olin It has the following parametern. -specific gravity at 15°C. Pistillation range = 8.07852 148 657452 Flash Point (ABEL) = 43°C " Anamalin Content- 114.7% EXAMINER à¤à¤®. सयà¥à¤¯ M. SYED AK. ....