9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished Leather'. The Report dated 16.10.2009 relied upon by the Revenue, gives the description of the sample is Cow Softy Upper Leather (Crunch) Colour: OLIVE (VI)(1)(E) . A mere difference of description of the goods in these two Reports given by the CLRI itself, as obtained by the Revenue and Assessee, cannot be fatal to the reliance placed by the Revenue on the said Report dated 16.10.2009 which pertained to the confiscated goods only. There are no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Assessee that on the basis of the report adduced by the Assessee before the Tribunal vide dated 22.10.2009, though obtained shortly after the report dated 16.10.2009, the Tribunal was required to direct a retest. Obviously th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uoted below for ready reference: 5. The samples of the leather are required to be sent to the CLRI as per the requirement of DGFT Public Notice dated 27.5.1992. We find that this is a detail Public Notice running into around 28 pages. The Public Notice has given description of types of leathers, manufacturing norms, conditions and the requirements to be tested. For example, in respect of protective coat , we find as per Note 2, the protective coat shall stand a minimum of 256 revolutions to grade 4 on Gray Scale (1-5) when tested on SATRA rub fastness tester for both dry and wet rubbing . 5.1 The ld. counsel was at pains to argue that the said Public Notice discussed is outdated. Be that as it may, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant themselves are placing absolute reliance on CLRI report, in respect of sample sent by them, they cannot then make aspersions at reports of CLRI on samples sent by the department. 5.3 The appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application Nos. C/Misc./40163, 40165 and 40167/2013 requesting to send the samples for retesting. After a lapse of more than a decade we do not think that such testing would serve any purpose. The remnant samples may well have been disposed of by CLRI after a prescribed time limit Even if the samples are still available, the passage of time, namely of almost nine years would surely have caused at least some perceptible, if not irreversible changes in the physical or other characteristics of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch Institute (CLRI) dated 16.10.2009, according to which, the sample of the leather of the present appellant was held not satisfying the norms and conditions laid down in the relevant notification as 'Finished Leather' was not justified, because the samples tested under the said report dated 16.10.2009 by CLRI, the goods were mentioned as 'Cow Softy Upper Leather (Crunch) Colour. OLIVE (VI) (1) (E), whereas the Assessee on export has mentioned in the Invoice as Cow Crunch Upper Leather . He submitted that if the export was Finished Leather , then the duty was not leviable under the provisions of the Customs Act, whereas if the goods on export were found to be 'not Finished Leather', levy of duty was attracted. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he confiscated goods of the appellant/Assessee and merely because the description in the said report given as Cow Softy Upper Leather (Crunch) Colour. OLIVE (VI)(1)(E) is differently worded from the Description of the Goods as used in the Invoice or the Shipping Bills of the Assessee as Cow Crunch Upper Leather , it cannot result in discarding the said Report, as the samples were taken from the confiscated goods of the appellant/Assessee only in accordance with the Rules and were sent to CLRI for investigation and giving the Report, whereas the Report obtained by the Assessee itself was of the sample taken by Assessee itself without following the Rules and therefore, the Report dated 22.10.2009 obtained by the Assessee, which satisfied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self, as obtained by the Revenue and Assessee, cannot be fatal to the reliance placed by the Revenue on the said Report dated 16.10.2009 which pertained to the confiscated goods only. The second Report dated 22.10.2009 obtained by the Assessee on the basis of samples sent by itself other than from confiscated goods cannot be said to be a ground to call for a retesting to be directed by the Tribunal after a long period, particularly where the description of the goods in the second report obtained by the Assessee itself is also different. These three different descriptions of the goods does not render the evidence relied upon by the Revenue viz., CLRI report dated 16.10.2009, non-est or unreliable. 7.We do not find any force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
