9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Central Excise Tariff and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- the appellants have preferred the above appeal. 2. We have heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Consultant and Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR and perused the records. 3. The appellants had imported a consignment said to contain 43.500 tonnes of brass ash/dross and described the goods as such, classifiable under Heading 26.20 Customs Tariff and claimed total exemption from levy of CV duty in terms of Notification No. 92/86, dated 17-2-1986. At the time of examination of the consignment a sample was drawn and pending test results the importers executed a test bond on the basis of which the goods were assessed provisionally under Heading 26.20. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est reports. They had asked for the copies of the test reports relating to those consignments as those reports would have a direct bearing upon the present case. Again on 24-2-1989 the importers addressed the adjudicating authority reiterating their request for copies of test reports of past consignments. We find that in the impugned order no reference is made to this correspondence. The adjudicating authority has fE.L.T. that adequate reasonable opportunity in the interest of natural justice has been granted because the case was posted for personal hearing on 28-12-1988 and 15-2-1989, notices for which hearings had been received by the importers. At this juncture, the learned SDR seeks to support this action of the adjudicating authority b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty has not ruled out their requests as being extraneous - as we have already pointed that he makes no mention of letters written by the appellants. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Arguing next on the merits of the case, the appellants contended that the test report is vague - it does not indicate the percentage of metal content; it does not contain any basis for finding that the goods have the characteristics of waste/scrap. There is nothing in it to rule out the goods being brass ash/dross. The learned SDR fairly admits that the test report does not indicate the percentage of metal content. However, according to him the test report conclusively sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout 77-86% copper; may be worked either hot or cold and is weldable by all standard procedures. "Yellow Brass" (High Brass) contains approximately 63-76% copper, has excellent cold-working and fair hot working properties, and is weldable. Dross : Metal oxides in molten metal, resulting from oxidation; material usually of oxide nature, rising to the surface of impure molten metal. Scrap : Substance unsuitable for direct use of repair and usable only as a raw substance for reprocessing." 9. The test report does not give a clear and categoric finding unlike the test report in the case of M/s. Premier Brass and Metal Works P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 98 (Tribunal) relied upon by the learned SDR. In this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
