9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are engaged in the export of Iron Ore Fines and during the relevant period, they had filed 55 shipping bills all dated 27.10.2007 for export of iron ore fines of 22,000 MT declaring its Fe content between 61% to 61.5%. They claimed benefit of exemption notification No. 62/2007- CUS dated 03.05.2007 accordingly. The export duty payable after the benefit of the said notification was Rs. 50/- PMT whereas the normal rate of duty was Rs. 300/- PMT. Pending test report of the sample of Iron Ore Fines, the goods were assessed provisionally applying the concessional rate of Rs. 50/- PMT. Representative samples were drawn by the department in appellant's presence and sent it to the chemical examiner, Customs House, Visakhapatnam against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further contended that the retest was conducted on 15.10.2009 i.e., after a lapse of one year and eleven months and hence the said test report cannot be relied upon in arriving at the Fe content of the iron ore fines. Hence, the appellants are eligible to the benefit of the Notification. 4. Per contra, learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the samples both for initial test and retest had been drawn in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Customs Act and the Rules made there under. It is his contention that the test report submitted by the appellant obtained privately belongs to samples drawn by the appellant unilaterally without following procedure laid down under the Customs Act nor in the presence of the officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the advocate being contrary to the principle of law in this regard laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd (supra). Their Lordship observed as below: "12. These orders are now under challenge before this Court. We were referred to a number of test reports obtained by the appellant from various persons and on the basis of these opinion, the reports of the Departmental Chemical Examiner and also the Chief Chemist were assailed. We are of the view that the Assistant Collector cannot be said to have erred in relying upon the reports given by the Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist. It may be that in a given case, the report of the Chief Chemist may be demonstrated to be palpably wrong. In such a case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
