1998 (7) TMI 177 - AT - Central Excise

Samples - Testing of - Yarn - Natural Justice - Cross Examination - Demand - Clandestine removal

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand for a specific period.
2. Revised demand for another period.
3. Imposition of penalties.
4. Denial of cross-examination of the Dy. Chief Chemist.
5. Acceptance of test reports from National Test House over CRCL.
6. Allegation of tampering with samples.
7. Responsibility of the department to draw and test check samples.
8. Authenticity of entries in the Daily Spinning & Production Register.
9. Compliance with testing standards.
10. Failure to disclose results of periodic samples.
11. Benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves five appeals challenging an Order-in-Original that confirmed demands for specific periods and imposed penalties. The issues were divided into two parts: one based on private registers and the other on yarn in bonded storage. The appellant raised concerns regarding the denial of cross-examination and the acceptance of test reports from different authorities.

2. The appellant argued that the denial of cross-examination violated natural justice principles. They cited relevant case laws to support their claims. Additionally, they challenged the conclusion of tampering with samples and emphasized discrepancies in test results.

3. Regarding the acceptance of test reports, the appellant highlighted the importance of ISI standards and criticized the dismissal of CRCL reports. They referenced a Supreme Court decision to support their argument.

4. The judgment also addressed issues related to the responsibility of the department in drawing and testing samples, the authenticity of register entries, and compliance with testing standards. The appellant provided detailed arguments and cited relevant case laws to support their contentions.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt in both parts of the case. They concluded that the Revenue failed to establish a preponderance of probability, setting aside the Order-in-Original unconditionally and ruling in favor of the appellants.