Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2009 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 439 - CESTAT, AHMEDABADWeak coking coal- Notification No. 11/97-Cus dated 1.3.1997- appellant imported Weak Coking Coal and filed a bill of entry on 4-4-97, declaring the Ash Content of the coal less than 12% and under the claim of benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. The said notification granted concessional rate of duty, if the Ash Content in the coal is less than 12%. It is seen that at the time of filing of bill of entry, the appellant produced certificate of quality issued by the supplier of the goods at Indonesia and produced by them at the Load Port certificating the Ash Contents in the coal to be 9.98% (Air Dried) in accordance with ASTM capital method. The bills of entries so filed by the assessee were assessed provisionally. The test report of the said laboratory showed the Ash Contents as being 14.4%. As the said laboratory suggested that samples be tested by Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad, the same were sent to the said laboratory who by their test report dated 13-7-98 reported the Ash Contents to the tune of 13.2%. Based upon the result of the above two test reports conducted by Customs House Laboratory, Kandla and Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad, showing the Ash Contents to be more than 12%, the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 stands denied to the appellant, with the resultant confirmation of demand of duty. The appellant submit that difference of content due to delay in testing. In the light of the various decisions held that- Having already examined that the evidences which weighed with the Tribunal to come to a conclusion in favour of the Revenue, are not available in the present case. In fact there are so many infirmities (long time gaps between drawal of samples and testing and retesting of the same, non-observance of IS procedure for drawing of samples, no indication showing ISI adoption of testing methods etc. and contradictions in the two reports) and the availability of favourable report, which lead us to discard the chemical examiners and CFRI report relied upon by the authorities below. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.
|