Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade available to the appellant. This order dt. 12.07.2006 has not been appealed against by the Revenue and has become final. However lower authorities at this stage cannot say that opinion of Chief Chemist is not necessary or required when specific directions were given by the first appellate authority. The matter is, therefore, again remanded back to the adjudicating authority to strictly follow the directions given by the first appellate authority in para 8 of the OIA dt. 12.07.2006 and give proper opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant at the appropriate time after getting report from the Chief Chemist, New Delhi - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/924/2012-DB - ORDER No. A/10089/2014 - Dated:- 15-1-2014 - Mr. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earth manufactured by the said appellant for the period upto 14.04.1999 has been settled as per CESTAT, New Delhi s final order No.A/557-558/2002 dated 21.05.2002 as well OIA No.100 to 101/2006 dated 12.07.2006. Accordingly it was confirmed that Bleach-9 i.e. activated earth, manufactured and cleared by the said appellant are to be classified under Chapter sub-heading No.38.02 of the CETA, 1985 and Central Excise duty is leviable thereon. There is no dispute regarding classification of Bleach 9 i.e. activated earth manufactured by the said appellant w.e.f. 23.08.2004 as the said appellant themselves classified the said product under Chapter sub-heading No.38.02. Admittedly, during the periods, the said appellant was using acid for washing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t product after 17.11.98 under intimation to the Department and the Department has not drawn fresh sample of the said product after the change of manufacturing process therefore Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad had sought report / comments on the issue from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. On a careful consideration of the case, my predecessor enquired vide letter dated 25.2.2004 if the Department has drawn samples of the product after the change of manufacturing process and if not sample be drawn and opinion obtained; that on receipt of my predecessors aforesaid letter, Department had drawn samples of the said product sometimes in year 2004 and that there are accordingly two different test reports of two Chemic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llowed to cross examination of both these Chemical Examiner to know as on what parameter it is being said that item manufactured by them is said to be Activated earth. I find that a copy of letter dated 30.8.2004 of Shri Narendra Kumar, Chemical Grade-I referred in para-7 of OIO No. 226-235/Dem/05-AC dated 16.2.2006 should have been given to the appellants and they should have been allowed cross examination of both these Chemical Examiner to find as to on what parameters it is being said that item manufactured by them is said to be Activated earth. As discussed in the impugned order there are two Chemical Test Reports of different Chemical Examiners of Chemical Laboratory, Vadodara conflicting each other in respect of the said product after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mand / classification should be decided by a single adjudicating authority for the entire period after following the principles of natural justice. 5.1. As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay application the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. It is clear from the earlier order dt. 12.07.2006 passed by the first appellate authority that it was directed that the lower authorities will send two conflicting test reports to Chief Chemist, Central Revenue Laboratory, New Delhi for his opinion alongwith the defence of the appellant and that any adverse report of the Chief Chemist received should also be made available to the appellant. This order dt. 12.07.2006 has not been appealed against by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates