9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sification. Therefore, they were sold to the appellant as third choice material. The said statement of the supplier has not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, in this case as Revenue opted not to remain present while drawing samples by the private lab, M/s. Geo-chem Laboratories and no counter to the supplier’s certificate was adduced in the impugned order. Further, we find that no cross-examination of the examiners of IIT, Mumbai was granted. In these circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants - inspection report of IIT, Mumbai is not acceptable. Therefore the description given by the appellant is accepted. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - Following decision of Mehta Steel Corporation [1998 (11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0010; was searched by the officers of SIIB (Import) on 23-2-2001. During the course of search approximately 262 MT of S.S. Sheets lying at M.H. Warehouse said to be belonging to M/s. S.C. Shah Co. (India), M/s. Dhanera Metal Supply Corpn. and M/s. Dhanera Steel Engineering Co. situated at 59, Kika Street, Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400004 were detained by the officers of SIIB (Import) for the purpose of investigation. 6. M/s. S.C. Shah Co. (India), M/s. Dhanera Metal Supply Corpn. and M/s. Dhanera Steel Engineering Co., vide their letter dated 26-2-2001 addressed to Commissioner of Customs (Import) claimed the ownership of the goods and stated that the detained goods lying at M.H. Warehouse were imported by them from ALZ NV Belgium, and cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Darukhana on 5-5-2001, which is as under : 107/116 M.H. Monai Warehouse : S.C. Shah (India) Co. (3 Stacks) Excellent Surface Uniform Size. First Quality 84.250 M.T. Dhanera Metal Supply Corporation (1 Stack) Excellent Surface Uniform Size. First Quality 65.312 M.T. (2 Stacks) Poor Surface defective Usable Scrap. Third Quality Dhanera Engineering S.C. Shah (India) Co. 116, M.H. Warehouse. (5 Stacks) Good Surface ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove goods were not taken up for weighment as the complete lot of B/E No. 000265, dated 2-2-2001 was found to be as First Grade Prime Quality. 12.2 Dhanera Metal Supply Corpn (1 Stacks) 30.140 Kgs. Gr. Wt. - 400 Kgs (Tare Wt.) Wooden packing. First Quality 29.740 M.T. 12.3 Mixed lot of S.C. Shah Dhanera Engg. 116 Darukhana. (5 Stacks) Staggered lying loose sheets. First Quality 61.770 M.T. 13. Prof. K.M. Gupt, Head of the Department of Metallurgical Engineering Material Science, IIT, vide his letter dated 18-6-2001 clarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions alleged in the show cause notice held to be correct and accordingly, duty demand along with interest has been confirmed, penalties were also imposed, impugned goods were confiscated, allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants are before us. 16. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the examination done by IIT experts was on the basis of visual inspection and no technical test was conducted on the said goods. Therefore, the examination report is not reliable. It is further submitted that during the course of adjudication, the appellants asked for cross-examination of the inspecting team; same was not allowed which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the submissions. 20. In this case, the appellant has challenged the report of IIT, Mumbai and in the adjudication proceedings they sought cross-examination of the IIT officials who did examination of the impugned goods which was denied by the adjudicating authority. Moreover while drawing sample by M/s. Geo-chem Laboratories the appellant had written a letter to the customs to remain present for taking the samples but the departmental officials did not remain present for drawing the samples. Moreover, the manufacturer/supplier of the impugned goods has stated that these goods are considered as scrap from their international classification. Therefore, they were sold to the appellant as third choice material. The said statement of the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
