9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 4-3-1970 is correct. 2. It might be stated that the Government of India by their Order No. 1499/1972 dated 25-9-1972 had held that difference in weight of yarn on the minus side would not go beyond one per cent on account of natural causes and therefore they allowed abatement of duty to the extent of one per cent in the case. This order was challenged before the Allahabad High Court, who by their order dated 23rd August, 1972 quashed the Reversionary order passed by the Central Government and directed the Central Government to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law, and in the light of observations made in the judgment. It is thus that revision application is before the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly basis. The Government of India in their revisionary order referred to above, which has been quashed by the Allahabad High Court held that the margin of the difference in weight of the yarn on the minus side would not go beyond 1% on account of natural causes, therefore, allowed abatement of duty to the extent of 1%. 4. In the grounds of appeal, a number of grounds as to arbitrariness of the order, limitation, non-applicability of Rule-9(2), duty being leviable at the point of clearance, there being no clandestine removal have been raised. It also appears that after the orders of the Government of India the amount of demand was revised to Rs. 18,558.48, which has been paid under protest on 30-3-1973. 5. At the hearing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere must be material from which some definite conclusion in the matter could be drawn. None of the parties, however, could place any material before the. Bench in this regard. 8. We have carefully considered the matter. It is well known that such losses do occur. The Department also does not dispute this. The Government of India had in their Revisionery Order granted an allowance of 1 % loss in weight to the appellants. The appellants have claimed loss in weight varying from 1.41% to 3.06% on an average 2.6% per year during the relevant period. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case without laying down any general proposition from the material on record before us, we see no reason to disbelieve the appellants in their c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
