“8 . After hearing both the parties in great details, we find that the Id. commissioner has taken a view that adding a carbon black results in chemically modifying the HDPE. It is not the case of the appellant that addition of carbon black does not result in any chemical modification. The carbon black is added for the purpose of colour and strength. The appellant also submits that only chemically modified polymers are different and otherwise, they are to be treated as HDPE. Further, they also submitted that the test certificate given by the supplier clearly indicate that the goods are not chemically modified HDPE. In our opinion, the lower authorities have not been fair. On the one hand, they relied upon the test certificate of the supplier to hold that addition of carbon black results in chemical modification, ignoring the specific statement of the supplier that there is no chemical modification. Having relied upon the test certificate for coming to one conclusion, the whole test certificate should have been taken into consideration. Moreover, no technical literature or opinion has been produced either by the appellant or by the revenue in support of their case. The Revenue has not got even the test certificate from the government laboratory, which was essential in this case. Whether the product is a chemically modified HOPE or not and whether it is known as HDPE in the market, has not been considered at all. In the absence of test conducted by the Government controlled laboratory, if the test report of the supplier is relied upon, it has to be fully considered. The Revenue has not applied even after the trade parlance test.
