2004 (11) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 27th May, 1996, held that these products were classifiable under Tariff Item 39.10. The Respondents filed an Appeal before the CEGAT which has been allowed by the impugned Judgment. Noting the two subsequent test reports CEGAT has held that they are the best evidence. It has held that mere statements obtained from some dealers in the market cannot prevail over these test reports. CEGAT has hel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... les were drawn and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist for the purpose of obtaining a test report. This test report indicated that these products were silicone oil in primary form. The Respondents demanded a second test. Another report was obtained on 2nd December, 1993 which held that these products were not silicone oil in primary form. It appears that the Department called for a third report from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iff Item 39.10. 5. We see no infirmity in the Judgment of CEGAT. Even otherwise we find that the question under consideration is covered by a decision of this Court in the Respondents own case reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that the emulsions of this nature cannot form the part of the then Tariff Item 15A(1) (which is now Tariff Item 39). 6. Under the circumstan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X