9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 587 - AT - CustomsBenefit of N/N. 106/95-Cus - fabrics - imports with a condition of re-export of the final product - Held that - it appears that the test results cannot be validated by subsequent retest on resubmission of the samples. It is evident that the original testing was made on estimation. No case has been made by the department and no corroborative evidence has been placed before us - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original No. 58/2009 dated 02.04.2009 regarding imported Dyed Woven Fabrics under Notification No. 106/95-Cus. Analysis: The appellant imported Dyed Woven Fabrics under a specific notification with a condition of re-exporting the final product. The fabric was imported with a declared composition of 45% polyester and 55% Rayon. However, upon examination of the exported final goods, it was discovered that the polyester content was significantly higher than declared. This led to a demand of &8377; 4,91,774/- along with interest and penalty of &8377; 1.5 lakhs. The appellant challenged this demand through the present appeal. During the proceedings, the Tribunal noted that a previous order had remanded the matter for retesting of the samples. However, the adjudicating authority faced difficulties in tracing the samples, leading to a reconfirmation of the demands. The Tribunal observed that the test results could not be validated through subsequent retesting due to the unavailability of the original samples. It was highlighted that the original testing was based on estimation, and the department failed to provide any corroborative evidence to support their case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to uphold the impugned order and set it aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, emphasizing the lack of substantiated evidence and the inability to retest the samples. The decision was made based on the insufficiency of proof provided by the department, leading to the setting aside of the demand raised against the appellant.
|
