9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard, Boxes and Printed Mill Board Cartons and claimed exemption of these products from payment of duty under Notification No. 279/82 read with Notification No. 48/83 dated 1-3-1983. The samples of the appellants products were drawn for test by the Deputy Chief Chemist. In his report dated 11-9-1984 the Deputy Chief Chemist stated that the sample was in the form of Grey Board printed on one side. The appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 31-5-1985 demanding duty amounting to Rs. 13,473.25 on the cartons cleared during the period February, 1985 and March, 1985 on the grounds that the cartons in question being made of Grey Board instead of Mill Board were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 279/82 dated 22-11-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector (Appeals) had also erred in holding that the request for the copy of the relevant Test Report was beyond the period of 90 days stipulated in Rule 56(4) since in terms of the Board s letter F. No. 7/9/68 dated 6-1-1979 the test result of the sample drawn by the Department was to be specifically communicated to them. They have added that the Department had taken 262 days to issue the show cause notice after receiving the said report and in case the Test Report had been communicated to them earlier, they could have exercised their right to have the goods retested. They have argued that the relevant Test Report not having been communicated to them at any stage, the question of applying the time limit under Rule 56(4) could not arise. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, the Assistant Collector was justified in not acceding to the appellants request for retest of the sample. The appellants have pointed out that the earlier report of the Deputy Chief Chemist, referred to by the Collector (Appeals), did not point out that the appellants product was made out of grey board. They have further contended that the Assistant Collector s action in not furnishing the copy of the Deputy Chief Chemist s report dated 11-9-1984 in respect of the sample drawn on 24-4-1982 immediately after the receipt of the report was in violation of the Board s letter F. No. 7/9/68 dated 6-1-1979 and they were on this account prevented from asking for retest of the sample within the period of 90 days stipulated in Rule 56(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us that the test report and traders statements in respect of the goods seized at Ahmedabad should be disclosed to them. The existence of such test report and such statements have not been denied by the department. We specifically directed that the case records be produced before us to verify the facts but this has not been done in spite of sufficient time given. The said test report and the statements may not have been relied upon by the department but if the appellants feel that these documents are vital for their defence, they become relevant evidence for the case and if the department keeps them back, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. From the proceedings we find that such violation of principles of natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
