ORDER
K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)
1. The appellant in this case is challenging the classification of their products (i) Parcolene Z and (ii) Pyroklin 101 under sub-heading No. 3402.90 and Parkerss P 41 Chapter 3208.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The classification of these products was done by the Asstt. Commissioner based on the test report result received from the Deputy Chief Chemist and after issuing the necessary show cause notice to the appellant. The order of the lower authority has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case on the basis of the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist and has not taken into account the other materials submitted by them. On being asked by the Bench whether they are disputing the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist, the Counsel stated that they are not disputing the test results of the Deputy Chief Chemist but are pleading their case on other facts.
3. We, however, find that the products in question have been classified on the basis of the test report obtained from the Deputy Chief Chemist which has not been challenged. Since these are matters of technical nature the opinion of the Deputy Chief Chemist cannot be disregarded especially so when the same are not challenged.
(Pronounced in Court)