9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after called the CET ) to the Central Excises and Salt Act. The jurisdictional inspector drew a sample on 21-8-1982 from the running lot No. 4 to ascertain the composition of the yarn. The Chemical Examiner, Central Excise, New Delhi, on test of the sample, reported as follows:- The sample is Khaki coloured Two Ply spun yarn composed of 64.2% (sixty four decimal two) wool fibres, 18.6% (Eighteen decimal six) Man-made fibres of cellulosic origin, and 17.2% (seventeen decimal two) man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin (Polyamide-Nylon) . The result was contrary to the manufacturers declaration that the yarn contained less than 1/6th by weight of nylon. In view of the presence of nylon fibre to the extent of more than 1/6th by weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retest by the Chief Chemist is adequate compliance with principles of natural justice and that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in his finding to the contrary and in directing the Assistant Collector to have a retest done by an independent laboratory. On the other hand, the respondents contention is that the department should have acceded to the aforesaid request, that a similar request by another manufacturer was acceded to by the Department and a sample was sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist, Central Excise Laboratory, Bombay, for retest and that the respondents had, even on 9-12-1982, expressed their lack of faith in the retest. It has also been pointed out that the Asstt. Collector had not heard the respondents after the receipt of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector (Appeals). There is no right accruing to the respondents to have a retest conducted in the manner specified by them. Central Excise Rule 56(4) no doubt confers on the manufacturer aggrieved by the result of the first test, the right to request the Assistant Collector for a retest. It does not, however, confer the right of asking that the sample be retested in a laboratory other than the one which conducted the original test. It is not the respondents case that the laboratory is not properly equipped to conduct the test. We must note that while the original test was conducted by the Chemical Examiner of the Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi, the retest was conducted by the Chief Chemist, superior in rank to the Chemic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
