9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the present matter on the basis of available evidences and old reports and held that original test report of the Chemical examiner concluded that the sample was other than coking coal, therefore the consignment of 16500 Mts. of imported coal is liable to be re-assessed as Coal other than coking coal . The Ld. Adjudicating authority nowhere given any finding on the vital facts, which are very important for deciding the issue that whether the imported coal is coking coal or other than coking coal in the absence of retesting of sample. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anish Jain, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the adjudicating authority have not followed the remand direction passed by the Hon ble CESTAT for re-testing the samples. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the following decisions. Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs, Nasik Vs. Dj. Malpani 2010 (258) ELT 185 (Bom) Bandana Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata 2013 (295) ELT 76 (Tri. Kolkata) Am Tech Industries Vs. Union of India 2017 (347) ELT 257 (Guj) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. 2013 (295) ELT 57 (Tri. Ahmd.) 3.1 He submits that Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order without cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efers to grant exemption to Coking Coal having ash content below 12% and of ash content of 12% or more. CSN is not provided as criteria in the exemption Notification. Thus extraneous parameters cannot be used by revenue to deny the exemption. 3.5 Without prejudice the above, he also submits that coal having 1CSN can be considered as coking coal. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015(12)TMI -1389-CESTAT. 3.6 He also submits that exporter loaded 45,584 MT. of Coking Coal on vessel named M.V. Bottiglieri Ambition, the said vessel reached on Pipavav on 03.10.2010 and unloaded 19,800MT of Coking Coal at Pipavav and thereafter sailed to Kandla where balance qty. of coking coal was unloaded. At Kndala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed as Coal other than coking coal . 6. However we observed that in the present case appellant has submitted vital facts before the Adjudicating authority that vessel MV Bottiglieri Ambition arrived in India with the total quantity of 65,404 MT. coking coal in bulk. Out of this, the importer has imported 16500 MT. The balance cargo was imported by other Indian buyers which was uploaded at Kandla. Since all had imported one and the same goods which had arrived into India on the same vessel, the importer had filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 with Customs House, Kandla with a request to provide statues of Bills of Entry and liability to pay differential duty on the same grounds as covered in the notice. The reply received fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
