TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no pleading made before Commissioner (Appeals), there is no reason to grant relief before Tribunal on new grounds. Report from IIT having been obtained at the back of Revenue that does not become admissible evidence. IIT report was obtained by appellant on 26-4-2006 which was subsequent to report of CRCL, dated 9-8-2004. After CRCL report, two years expired and IIT report was obtained by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CRCL is not correct in respect of testing of polyester fabric (un-textured) imported by the appellant. IIT by its report, dated 26-4-2006 opined that goods declared by the appellant were correct. The adjudicating authority has not allowed retesting of the goods nor allowed cross-examination of chemical examiner of CRCL. Therefore, merely basing on the report of the CRCL, classification of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of chemical examiner at the interest of justice when CRCL report remained unchallenged and IIT report was obtained by appellant without making Revenue a party thereof. There was no challenge before that Authority as to the departure to the prescribed norm by CRCL. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not rely on IIT report on the ground that Revenue did not refer the sample to IIT. When there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
