9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Pvt. Ltd. was not a qualified laboratory as per the Circular issued by the DGFT Revenue should not have once again relied on the test report given by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. for adjudication in the present matter - It was held by this Tribunal by affirming the order dated 31/03/2010 passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that report given by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was not qualified to adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said goods were valued at ₹ 24,77,860/-. The containers were opened for examination and samples were drawn. The samples so drawn were sent for test to M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana. The matter was adjudicated on the basis of test report submitted by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. It was reported in the said Test Report dated 08/09/2009 that the percentage of Basmati Rice in the sample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 22/10/2014 held that this Tribunal has powers to remand the mater and therefore remanded the matter directing that samples may be got tested as directed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) through his said Order-in-Appeal dated 31/03/2010. In compliance to the directions of this Tribunal samples were sent to Regional Agmark Laboratory, New Delhi on 17/07/2015. The samples were drawn on 27/08/2009. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22/12/2016, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that there was no evidence on record to contradict the said report of M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, upheld the said OIO dated 22/02/2016. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter. The Original Adjudicating Authority passed the judgment on the finding of this Tribunal through Para 27 of OIO dated 22/02/2016. It is more pitiable that the Senior Officer of the Rank of Commissioner working as Commissioner (Appeals) did not object to such an action by the Original Authority. In view of above stated observations, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. As a result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
