When The Test Reports Are On Record, No Need To Go To The Websites And Wikipedia: CESTAT
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that when the test reports are available on record, there is no need to go to the website or Wikipedia.The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that the exemption under the notification was provided to "Boron Ore." The product's test report...
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that when the test reports are available on record, there is no need to go to the website or Wikipedia.
The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that the exemption under the notification was provided to "Boron Ore." The product's test report revealed that the goods are "boron ore," but it was obtained after impurities were removed. The adjudicating authority has relied on Wikipedia and the Website for the meaning of "Ore" and not on the report.
The issue involved was whether the appellants’ import of "boron ore" is eligible for exemption.
The appellant/assessee contended that the lower authorities had denied the exemption on the grounds that the appellant's Boron Ore was not naturally mined Boron Ore, but that the impurities had been removed from the product. Therefore, it is concentrated boron ore, which was not eligible for exemption notification. Only naturally mined boron ore is eligible for exemption.
The assessee contended that the test report by two laboratories confirmed that the goods imported are boron ore. Once it was decided that the goods were boron ore, whether concentrated or otherwise, the exemption was admissible.
The tribunal has held that the adjudicating authority has not properly considered various defenses and that the matter needs to be reconsidered in light of the test reports relied upon by the appellant.
Case Title: Pradipkumar P. Patel Versus C.C.
Citation: Customs Appeal No.10047 of 2022
Date: 25.01.2023
Counsel For Appellant: J C Patel, A Banerjee, T. Vishwanathan, Rahul Gajera, Manish Jain
Counsel For Respondent: Vikas Mehta