9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Gypsum Board (GRG) at Sl.No.234 (iv) without any condition thereto. Thus the insistence on IS standards by the customs authorities is not a requirement in the said notification. The goods are not conforming to the standards of Gypsum Reinforced Gypsum Boards even when the Deputy Director, CTAL has stated in cross examination that they did test presence/content of glass fibre - We are also unable to fathom how even the request for re-testing of the samples made by the appellant has been dismissed peremptorily by the lower appellate authority for the reason that further re-testing would not serve any fruitful purpose. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/296/2010 - Final Order No. 43421 / 2017 - Dated:- 7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The samples Boral Elephant Brand gypsum Boards conform to ASTM C-36 specification for Gypsum Wall Board and BS 1230 Specification for Gypsum Base Board. 2. ASTM C-36 and BS 1230 are not the specifications for Glass Reinforced gypsum Board. They are the specification for Gypsum Wall board and Gypsum Plaster Boards. 3. The sample so enclosed are Gypsum Plaster Boards. 4. The samples do not conform to IS 2095, part-3, 1996 Specification for Reinforced Gypsum Plaster Board. 2. Department therefore took the view that the impugned goods conform to specification for non-GRG and that goods are Gypsum Plaster Boards. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 26.12.2006 was issued to appellant inter alia proposing confiscation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him that the samples were glass fibre reinforced gypsum board but not conforming to Indian standards, he did not answer directly but said that the samples did not conform to Indian standards. ii) The test contemplated was whether the sample was glass fibre reinforced gypsum board or plain gypsum plaster board. It is thus evident that the Deputy Director of the laboratory who conducted the test ought to have ascertained as to whether the sample contained glass fibre or not. It is the presence of glass fibre or absence of it that determines the issue. The vital test to be conducted by the laboratory has not been conducted. It is accordingly submitted that reliance placed by the adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of CVD Exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE. 3. On the other hand, ld. A.R Shri Balamurugan supports the impugned order. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all aspects of the matter and has given a reasoned finding that the test report clearly stated that the goods could not be considered as Glass Reinforced Gypsum Boards and has accordingly upheld the order of original authority. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. Discernably, during cross examination before original authority, the Deputy Director, CTAL has accepted that their laboratory did not test presence/content of glass fibre in the samples. It is also important to note that earlier consignments of similar / identical goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
