9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them or under sub-heading 5407.44 of C.T.A. as confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. 2.1 Shri Sudhir Mehta, ld. Advocate, submitted that Appellant, an export oriented unit, imported acrylic coated fabric and silver coated fabric and filed Bill of Entry on 28-4-2001; that the goods were assessed by the proper officer under sub-heading 5903.09 and were allowed to be utilized for the purpose of consumption in the unit for export; that after obtaining permission part of the impugned goods were cleared in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of duty; that the impugned goods were seized by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the ground that the fabric did not have coating visible to naked eye as required in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nions given by the Departmental Laboratories should be ignored and opinions of an outside agency should be considered as final; that reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of CCE v. Cellulose Products of India, 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1133 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that test report of Departmental Chemist/Chief Chemist and Technical authorities are to be preferred to opinion of outside agencies while classifying the product. The ld. Counsel contended that there is no dispute that the impugned goods and the goods imported by Vaibhav Textile were same; that the supplier is same; that the Adjudicating Authority has not controverted these assertions made by them; that he distinguished the case only on the ground that in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts given by the Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist that the views expressed by them cannot be lightly brushed aside on the basis of some private persons. (ii) Ciba Speciality Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Goa, - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 358 (T); (iii) Sandip Agarwal v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 528 (Cal.) wherein it was held by the Calcutta High Court that the Customs Authorities are bound by their own precedents. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri T.K. Kar, ld. D.R., besides reiterating the findings as contained in the impugned Order, submitted that the decision in the case of Vaibhav Textile is not applicable in the present matter inasmuch as the Adjudicating authority has not given a specific finding that the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. (supra), that the views expressed by the Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist cannot be lightly brushed aside. We agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that the Adjudicating authority cannot determine the classification of any product on the basis of the majority of opinions. It is also settled law that in interpreting the taxing statute, liberal interpretation is to be applied. We are of the view that the matter should have been decided on the basis of test reports given by the Chemical Examiner which have been brushed aside without giving any cogent reasons. The Adjudicating Authority cannot go by the majority of the opinions. We also observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
