TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: - in the case of M/s Rathi Enterprises, [2015 (2) TMI 81 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] this Tribunal had held that CRCL did not have facility to test the samples and therefore, the test report given by CRCL is in doubt and that the appellant had right to ask retest of the samples from any other laboratory other than CRCL. The related confiscation and imposition of penalty and re-determination of value of consignments related to Bills of Entry filed on 25/09/2014 & 30/09/2014 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. C/70662-70663/2017-CU[DB] With MISC Application No. C/MISC/70336-703372017 - FINAL ORDER NO. 70357-70358/2018 - Dated:- 14-12-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of said test report given by CRCL and issued the appellant with Show Cause Notice dated 29/02/2016 proposing change in the classification of imported goods from CTH-25309030 to 28365000 which is for Calcium Carbonate. Accordingly, there was a proposal to reject the value of the goods imported covered by said two Bills of Entry and enhance the same and as a result there was a proposal to demand differential Customs duty of ₹ 6,80,859/-. Further, there was a proposal to confiscate the goods covered by above stated two Bills of Entry and also to confiscate the previous consignment imported by the same appellant. Further, there were proposals to enhance the value of goods imported in the past after they were cleared long back and there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 70,00,000/- on the importer-appellant and penalty of ₹ 70,00,000/- on Shri Pawan Khatri (Director). Aggrieved by the said order, both the appellants have preferred present appeal. 3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellants. He has submitted that the whole proceedings have violated principles of natural justice because as held by this Tribunal in the said case of M/s Rathi Enterprises the appellant had right to ask retest of the samples from any other laboratory other than CRCL. Further, he has submitted that they informed the Original Authority that CRCL did not have equipment for testing Natural Calcite Powder because for testing whether the Calcite Powder was natural or processed x-ray diffraction method is to be used and CR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-classification of the goods in respect of past consignments was not sustainable. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that in so far as confirmation of demand, re-classification, enhancement of value, confiscation, imposition of penalty and redemption fine on past clearances in the impugned Order-in-Original is concerned the same set aside by relying on the precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Penshibao Wang P. Ltd. (supra). In so far as, the Order-in-Order in respect of the said two Bills of Entry dated 25/09/2014 30/09/2014 is concerned, we find that the said Circular dated 16/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
