Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)
Jsw Steel Ltd vs Tiruchirapalli on 10 March, 2026 cites

Caprihans India Ltd vs Cce Thane I on 3 February, 2011

8.3 We observe that a plain reading of the Show Cause Notice reveals that the primary allegations were limited to two aspects, namely, that the provisional assessment was finalized without obtaining Mean Reflectance (MR) from a laboratory having requisite facility, and that the Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) values in the load port survey reports were allegedly unreliable based on certain extracts from the text "Coal Geology" by Larry Thomas. 8.4 We find that the Show Cause Notice does not contain any reference whatsoever to testing conducted by the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad. We note that the notice neither states that remnant samples were sent to CIMFR nor annexes any report indicating that CSN was below 1. We further observe that the 8 notice does not allege that any subsequent scientific testing demonstrated non-fulfilment of conditions of the notification. 8.5 We observe that the impugned order, however, proceeds entirely on the basis of CIMFR's report dated 19.03.2014 which indicates CSN of 0.5 in respect of Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012. We find that paragraphs 18 to 23 of the impugned order rely substantially on this belated report. We therefore find that the decisive evidentiary foundation of the impugned order is a document not forming part of the Show Cause Notice. 8.6 We find that the Appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC), CC v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC), and Caprihans India Ltd. v. CCE 2015 (325) ELT 632 (SC), to contend that adjudication cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. We note that these authorities unequivocally lay down that the notice is the foundation of the proceedings and that no new ground can be introduced at the stage of adjudication.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Siemens Ltd., Tata Libert Ltd. And ... vs Cc on 3 May, 2002

9.9 We note that the Appellant has relied upon TATA Chemicals Ltd. v. CC 2015 (320) ELT 45 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that departmental testing must be supported by valid reasons and that importer's documents cannot be disregarded without cogent grounds. We find that in the present case no such defect in load port certificate or Customs laboratory report has been established by the Department.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Cce, Panchkula vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 26 July, 2016

8.3 We observe that a plain reading of the Show Cause Notice reveals that the primary allegations were limited to two aspects, namely, that the provisional assessment was finalized without obtaining Mean Reflectance (MR) from a laboratory having requisite facility, and that the Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) values in the load port survey reports were allegedly unreliable based on certain extracts from the text "Coal Geology" by Larry Thomas. 8.4 We find that the Show Cause Notice does not contain any reference whatsoever to testing conducted by the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad. We note that the notice neither states that remnant samples were sent to CIMFR nor annexes any report indicating that CSN was below 1. We further observe that the 8 notice does not allege that any subsequent scientific testing demonstrated non-fulfilment of conditions of the notification. 8.5 We observe that the impugned order, however, proceeds entirely on the basis of CIMFR's report dated 19.03.2014 which indicates CSN of 0.5 in respect of Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012. We find that paragraphs 18 to 23 of the impugned order rely substantially on this belated report. We therefore find that the decisive evidentiary foundation of the impugned order is a document not forming part of the Show Cause Notice. 8.6 We find that the Appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC), CC v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC), and Caprihans India Ltd. v. CCE 2015 (325) ELT 632 (SC), to contend that adjudication cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. We note that these authorities unequivocally lay down that the notice is the foundation of the proceedings and that no new ground can be introduced at the stage of adjudication.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975

9.2 We note that at the time of import the contemporaneous evidence comprised the Certificate of Quality dated 17.01.2012 issued at the load port by ACIRL Quality Testing Services Pty Ltd reporting CSN 1.5 and MR 1.75, and the Test Report dated 02.04.2012 of the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Chennai reporting CSN 3. 9.3 We observe that both contemporaneous CSN values were above the prescribed threshold of 1 and that the MR reported at load port was 1.75, which is significantly higher than the required 0.60. We further note that even as per the subsequent CIMFR report, the MR value is 1.59, which also satisfies the notification requirement. 9.4 We find that the dispute pertains only to the CSN value of 0.5 reported by CIMFR more than two years after drawal of samples. We observe that the Appellant has relied upon technical literature explaining that coal is hygroscopic and that oxidation and weathering may result in deterioration of caking properties over time. 9.5 We note that the Appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC), wherein it was 12 held that classification must be determined based on the condition of goods at the time of import.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 290 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1