TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER The revenue is in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Duplex paper and paperboard. During the scrutiny of records viz. E.R.I. returns, purchase orders etc. and visit to the factory premises of the respondent, it was found that the respondent are clearing finished goods classified under tariff subheading no. 4802.10 at nil rate of duty and sub heading no. 4810.01 on payment of duty. After visit the factory, it was found that the respondent is engaged in manufacture and clearance of coated paperboard, coated on one side with China clay and the same is classifiable under tariff sub heading no. 4810.10. It was also alleged that the respondent have received purchase or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round of the appeals that the party procured orders from controller of stationery, Thiruvananthapuram for supply of 135 MT of while Pulp board/Cover paper and M.G. White Duplex Board from Tamilnadu Textbook Corporation Chennai. As the goods have been cleared under sub heading 4802.10 which is a suitably classified under sub heading 4810.10 and as required to coated on (one side) to be cleared on payment of duty. This fact has been admitted by the authorised representative to the respondent in his statement dated 22.12.2004 and also admitted that they classified the goods as per the end use but the classification is not to be done as per end use as it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. vs. UOI as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been ignored by the committee of commissioner while purposing to file the appeal against the impugned order. The test reports have not considered by the adjudicating authority also, the respondent repeatedly ask the adjudicating authority for supply the test report which was not supplied to the respondent but the same has been obtained by the respondent from the chemical examiner. This test reports have been placed on record by the respondent but the said test reports have not been considered while filing the appeal before this tribunal. 9. We further find that the Ld. Commissioner (A) has examined the issue in question in details has observed as under: That the following issues arises for decisions:- i. Whether the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of supplying the same. It is further observed that the official of the Department during the course of visit to the appellant factory obtained the samples of paper supplied to Tamilnadu text book corpn. Stationery Department of Kerala, whereas the test report of the said samples was never supplied to the appellant despite their repeated request. I failed to understand the non availability of the test report of the samples which were drawn for a specific purpose for ascertaining as to whether the said paper is coated or uncoated. The appellant have, however, produced the test report of the samples drawn by the Department from the paper supplied to these consignees which categorically states that the sample is a cut piece of uncoate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
