9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Heading No. 85.18/27(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and to additional duty of Customs equivalent to the Excise duty leviable under Item No. 67 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the said Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the C.E.T. ). The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty so assessed but filed claims for refund of additional duty of customs on the ground that the imported carbon rods fell under Item No. 68 and not under Item No. 67, CET. The Assistant Collector rejected these claims, some of them as unsubstantiated and the others on the ground that battery carbons imported by dry cell battery manufacturers had been tested at the National Test House, Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evance of the appellants that no samples were drawn from their consignments and yet the results of test conducted on samples from other consignments were sought to be applied to their goods. Further, the test reports relied upon by the department were not disclosed to the appellants. They were, therefore, deprived of an opportunity to rebut the findings of the National Test House and put forth their case. The department has not rebutted these contentions. This fact, coupled with the non-production before us of the test reports relied upon by the lower authorities against the appellants, can only lend support to the genuineness of the appellants grievance. Unless the goods subjected to tests and the goods in dispute now are shown to be iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inguishable from graphite electrodes and anodes and fell under Item No. 68, C.E.T. The Bombay Central Excise Collectorate had also issued a Trade Notice No. 15/84, dated 7-4-1984 to the effect that carbon rods for manufacture of dry batteries were classifiable under Item No. 68, C.E.T. 6. Shri Sachar, for the department, contended that the appellants had not agitated before the lower authorities regarding non-disclosure of test reports and that the appellants could not agitate the matter now before the Tribunal. For the present purpose, it is not necessary to consider this objection for the reason that the onus on the department to show that the goods fell under Item No. 67 had not been discharged particularly considering that carbon and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
