2013 (12) TMI 1194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which was in favour of the assessee, was not called for. The earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the discrepancies in the two reports, had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, calling for a fresh retest report. The earlier order has not been challenged by the Revenue. As such, it was not permissible for Commissioner (Appeals) to refer the said fact - appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ives classifiable under heading 3403.9900. The appellant also got a test conducted from Regional Centre for Extension and Development, Central Leather Institute, Kanpur. As per the said report, the imported goods were sulphonated fish oil. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of demand resulting in passing of order by the original adjudicating authority. On appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate Authority instead of taking note of the retest report, accepted the Revenue s contention that inasmuch as the first report of CRCL was against the appellant and the report submitted by the appellant which was in their favour, did not pertain to the sample drawn in the presence of the Revenue, he set aside the impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 6. We at this prima facie stage are of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X