9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 05/2010 dated 27.12.2010. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are appellant imported consignment of "Black Water Soft Coking Coal" and sought clearance as 'coking coal' with nil duty incidence in terms of Notification No.21/2002-CUS dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stating that in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the coal imported is 'coking coal' or otherwise, the most important factor is Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) which in the case in hand reports as 1.50. After explaining these details, it was contended by the appellant before the lower authority that they are using corex technology for manufacturing iron and steel and in the said technology, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess; the test reports indicate that the CSN of the imported consignment is 1.50 which would itself indicate that the said coal is coking coal; there is no definition of coking coal in the notification under which the exemption is claimed by the appellant. He would submit that identical issue of the very same assessee was argued before the Tribunal in Bombay as reported at 2016 (343) ELT 717 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, Steel Authority of India Ltd, Ranchi' and submits that there is restriction of non coking coal being used in the corex technology. He submits that non coking coal is imported and it cannot be used. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we do find that identical issue in respect of various bills of entry were disposed of by this Bench by Final Order dated 15.11.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d findings on this issue of whether the imported coal is coking coal or otherwise is also indicated in the judgment of the Tribunal at Bombay (supra). In view of this, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable, though the judgment of the Bombay Tribunal and this Bench are in appeal before the Apex Court. 7. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
