At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: D.N. PANDA
By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: C.J. MATHEW
For Petitioner: S.P. Mathew, Advocate And For Respondents: V.R. Reddy, AC (AR)
1. Appellant says that mere visual examination of the goods shall not make the same as dutiable. It supports his contention placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mehta Steel Corporation 2002 (150) ELT 188 (Tri-Mum). But appellant did not challenge the report of the National Metallurgical Laboratory, Madras against it before the Adjudicating authority. It had requested to waive the sow-cause notice.
2. When the appellant did not challenge the report of the National Metallurgical Laboratory against it on technical test of the said laboratory, it is difficult for the Tribunal to set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority which was based on laboratory's report. In the case cited by the appellant, the examination was done by an officer of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), which is not an expert body. Therefore, that has not merit for consideration in the present case because it is a case of testing of goo
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ds by a national laboratory. 3. In view of the above observation, appeal is dismissed.