9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 24/2008 dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore. 2. Shri G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Kuljeet Rawal, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms Sudha Koka, learned SDR, appeared for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The learned Advocate stated that the appellants filed two Bills of Entry for warehousing the imported cargo. They imported edible oils through Mangalore Port. The edible oils which they imported are entitled for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 as amended if it satisfies certain conditions. The main condition for concessional rate of duty is the carotene value should be between 500/- and 1500/-. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants would have gone for retest and it is a right for them to have the goods retested and that right has been lost because the test results were communicated to them only after a period of one and half years. By that time the retest could not have been done because it has already been held on the basis of the technical literature and scientific opinion that the carotene value decreases over time and it will not test the same over a long period of time. He stated, even though these facts are pointed out to the lower authorities they actually ignored the same and committed gross judicial indiscipline in confirming the demand. 6. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the facts of this case are different from the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he carotene value would be the same at any point of time. This approach is not correct. Moreover, he has also not considered the point that when the test result is given after such a long delay the appellant loses the right to ask for retests. He could not have asked for retest, as the same would not be beneficial to him, because it has already been seen that storing the oil for a long time changes the carotene value. Only on this basis the earlier decision, which was cited, has been taken and same has been upheld by the High Court. By ignoring the said decision we find that the Commissioner has committed gross judicial indiscipline. This tendency has to be avoided. In our view, the appellants case is squarely covered by the cited decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
