ORDER
C. Satapathy Member (Technical)
1. Shri M.H. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the dispute in this case relates to the content of non-conventional pulp in the paper made by the appellants for the purpose of obtaining duty concession. He states that the appellants have been using adequate amount of baggase, a non-conventional material, in the production of paper to entitle themselves for the duty concession. He also draws our attention to the Board’s Circular No. 5/64 which recognizes difficulty in determining the percentage of non-conventional raw-material by chemical and microscopic test and hence it prescribes physical supervision and accounting checks. He further refers to chemical test report dated 15.5.1992 which clarifies that it is not possible to determine the exact percentage of baggase by laboratory test and that it should be ascertained by the executive checks. It is Shri Patil’s submission that the impugned order has been passed based on a subsequent test carried out in 1996 by the Chemical Examiner in which he has given an opinion that the paper can not be made of unconventional pulp to the extent of 75% and above. Shri Patil submits that firstly, paper was sent for test and not pulp, secondly the test report was given to the appellants only on 09.01.2001 and their request for re-test has been ignored. Shri Patil also submits a Chartered Accountant’s Certificate dated 27.6.2003 showing that the appellants have been using the required percentage of baggase during the relevant period. The appellants have also produced 5 certificates from different sources indicating that the Chemical examiner report of 1996 is inaccurate.
2. We have heard Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned J.D.R. for the department.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the samples have not been re-tested despite request from the appellants. The Board’s instructions have also not been followed that physical and accounting checks should be relied on in view of the difficulty in determining the percentage of unconventional material. The Chartered Accountant’s Certificate submitted now before the Tribunal has also not been seen by the lower authorities. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and remand the case to the original authority for re-testing the samples and also for taking into consideration the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and other documentary evidences submitted by the appellants and re-decide the case afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court)