9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative Per: Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. These appeals are filed against OIO No. 01/Commissioner/2011 dated 4.2.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant assessee had imported "6500 MTs of Coking Coal in Bulk" and filed Bills of Entry on 14.9.2010 claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared that the imported goods was coking coal and the parameters in the same test report satisfied the conditions of the exemption Notification. When the sample was tested by the Customs department, all the parameters found to be different. Since there was mis-match in Load Port report and Chemical Examiner's report, they have requested re-testing of the same on 28.12.2010 and thereafter on thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated in the first report; also all the other parameters were not indicated in the second report. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We find force in the argument of the learned Advocate. On going through the chemical test reports at the Load Port, and the Chemical test report of the department, we find that the parameters do not match. Once there are contradictions on the test re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sample as requested by the appellant. 9. The Revenue has also filed an appeal against the same order challenging the quantum of fine and penalty imposed. Since we are remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the eligibility of the notification on the out come of the basis of test to be conducted again, we do not find any reason to record findings on the redemption fine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
