TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned shipping bills - Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in its view that test results of one shipping bill can be made applicable to other shipping bills. The export goods were declared to be covered under S.No.(I) and (XIII) of Public Notice No.21/2009-14 dt.1.12.2009. and the condition No.VI “Burnishable Leathers (All subtracts including butts and bends)” clearly is not applicable to shipping bill No.194. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/59388/2013 - A/62347/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar, AR Present for the Respondent: Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate PER: DEVENDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000195 dt. 21.01.2011 Buff calf wax coated leather colour black 671 59/10/CFS/JAL The samples were sent to the Director, Regional Centre for Extension Development Adyar, Chennai to confirms as to whether all the required processes as per DGFT s Public Notice No. 21/2009- 14 dt. 01.12.2009 have been carried out on the goods. The Central Leather Research Institution Adyar, Chennai submitted the test reports on 11.03.2011 as under:- S/Bill No. Description Test Report 000191 dt. 21.01.2011 Cow calf wax coated leather colour black ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t burnish finished leather exported by the appellant vide shipping bills no. 000193, 000194 and 000195 all dt. 21.01.2011 was not finished leather and was therefore liable to charging export duty @60% ad valorem. 3. Aggrieved from the final assessment order dt.3.10.2011, the exporter filed appeal with Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the said final assessment order. 4. Aggrieved from the same, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 5. Ld.AR for the Revenue submits that the samples package No.659 was representative of the entire consignment having continuous S.Nos.621 to 683 and three shipping bills were covered under the same Proforma invoice and invoices for shipping bills were all dated 24.1.2011. The description of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich have been placed on record by the appellant page from 21 to 25 of the paper book. Even though the consignee is the same the fact that the goods declared were different for the three shipping bills and different conditions were claimed in terms of Public Notice No.21/2009-14 dt.1.12.2009 for each of the impugned shipping bills. We therefore find force in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that test results of one shipping bill can be made applicable to other shipping bills. We also find that in the shipping bill No.194, the description given is as below:- (i) Leather with finished coat (cow calf leather with finishing coat colour: black), (XIII) wax/oil coated leather (cow calf wax coated leather colour: brown) falling at Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esearch Institute, Chennai the sample drawn out Package No.671 from Shipping Bill No.195 dated 24.01.2011 satisfied the norms of the said Public Notice. Therefore, the rest result in the goods covered under shipping bill no.193 and 195 both dated 24.01.2011 is in respect of Sl.No.VI of the said Public Notice which the appellant never claimed and the said Test Report does not say that the goods did not satisfy the condition no.I XII of the said Public Notice as claimed by the appellant. The said Test Report is in respect of one package only and the same cannot be held to be applicable to all the packages covered under the said shipping bill. 11. In view of foregoing, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
