9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. However in the present case the opinion of Chemical Engineers differ therefore we find that an opportunity to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner is required.Appeal disposed of by way of remand. - C/238/03 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2011 - Mr. S.S. Kang, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (SDR), f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Tariff. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellant filed appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was dismissed. 4. The contention of the appellant is that in respect of the same goods which were imported earlier, the Chemical Examiner vide test report dated 9.10.2000 opined that the goods in question are preparation of animal feed. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2001 (138) ELT 414 (Tri.-LB) whereby similar goods were held to be classifiable under Chapter 23 of the Tariff. The Revenue's appeal against the decision of the Larger Bench was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide 2001 (132) ELT 525 (SC). 7. The learned SDR appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared under Chapter 23 of the Tariff. In the present consignment in respect of the same goods, the Chemical Examiner gave the opinion that the same are not for preparation of animal feed. The appellant asked for cross-examination as there were two contrary opinions of the Chemical Examiner in respect of the same goods and there is no finding in the orders passed by the authorities below regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
