“7. It is true that CRCL is not the Authority for deciding the classification of goods; however, in the instant case, the CRCL had only provided the nature of the product and thereafter, the issue of classification was decided by the Assessing Authority. The reasons for seeking retest as enumerated in the grounds of appeal are also worth considering as the CRCL is the Competent Authority to provide the nature of the goods based on a scientific testing of the admitted samples. It is also observed that the appellant was provided fair opportunity of representation in accordance with the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court, yet the appellant admittedly failed to avail such opportunity. Hence, it cannot be argued that principles of natural justice were violated. No doubt, absence of Shri Kapil Dev Aggarwal during investigations would not be a limiting factor for classification; however, the appellant on the other hand did not submit their contentions before the Learned Adjudicating Authority appropriately inspite of provision of fair opportunity of representation. Presently, based on samples drawn in the presence of CHA representing the importer, a categorical report has been provided by the Independent Competent Authority i.e. the CRCL. Hence, the competency cannot be questioned. However, in the light of 2009 (241) ELT 390 ,and 2009 (236) ELT 83, there is no harm or restriction in allowing re-test, especially, when the disputed issue is involving the technicalities'of the impugned goods. The' Customs Manual Chapter 3, Para 15 also provides for re-test as contended by the appellant. Since the Department is quite sanguine about test results, why fight shy of second test,
