9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Goat Leather does not comply with the terms and conditions specified in the Public Notice of the Government of India vide their notification dated 27-5-1992, made the appellant to file this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The appellant-company is an exporter of finished leather to the foreign countries. They claimed the benefits of the exemption notification dated 27-5-1992 on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27-8-2002 confirmed the order passed by the original authority. The said order was once again challenged before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai. The CESTAT found that the CLRI scientist, who conducted the test and issued the certificates, stated in his cross-examination that the sample submitted by the party and which was certified by him to satisfy the nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CESTAT clearly shows that it was only on the basis of the factual adjudication, the issue was decided against the appellant. The three fact-finding authorities have clearly stated that the protective coating was totally absent and as such, the claim made by the appellant on the basis of exemption notification was not valid. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, decided the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
