9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement of the Court was made by K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. ] This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 26.10.2005 in Appeal No. E/401/1999. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3.The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Fabrics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the Tribunal's order made in Shri N.Venkataraman Iyer (1986 (23) ELT 471) holding that the Commissioner is to furnish the result of the test and not to give opinion on the tariff classification. The Commissioner(Appeals) also had come to the conclusion that the Bleaching Process was not done in respect of the fabric in question. 4.Challenging the said order of the Commissioner(Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leaching which is not specified in the Notification; and (iii) When the assessee have failed to prove that the impugned goods have not undergone the process of bleaching. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant contended by reiterating the findings rendered by the Original Authority and thus submitted that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of exemption of duty payment under the Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered and decided by the two fact finding authorities, namely the Commissioner(Appeals) and CESTAT, in favour of the respondent. When it is the clear and categorical finding of those authorities that the Deputy Chief Chemist has not tested the samples and that he has given his opinion only based on the letter addressed by the Revenue, such factual findings rendered by those authorities which cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
