9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Man made Yarn. At the relevant time, the appellant used to manufacture controlled variety of cloth under the direction from the Textile Commissioner. During the relevant time, the excise duty was charged at the specific rate of duty based on category of cloth. The category of cloth was formed on the basis of average count of the yarn in the fabrics. On 6-8-1974, the Inspector of Central Excise drew a sample of Sort No. 520 falling under Central Excise Category MBA for test. It was sent to Deputy Chemist of Central Excise at Baroda for test. On test it was found to contain higher average count than that declared by the appellants. Accordingly, a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. 9,889.83 was raised which was confirmed after us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 76 (Bom.) wherein it was held that it is obligatory on the revisionary authority to state the reasons as to why the reports and opinions of technical experts and consultants produced in support of the claim made by the assessee is to be ignored. Case of Madhu Wool Spg. Mills v. Union of India and Others, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2200 was also cited wherein it is held that the test of one consignment cannot decide the wool contents of other consignments and that it is not permissible to select that conclusion which suits the authorities if there are different analysis of sample showing different conclusions. To meet the said contentions it was contended by Shri M.K. Jain, Ld. SDR that the facts of the present case are different f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty which is maintainable in law. I, therefore, reject the appeal and disposed of accordingly." 6. We have ourselves considered the said contentions of the appellants and find that it has no force. It is an admitted fact on the record that after the receipt of the report of the Deputy Chemist of Central Excise at Baroda the appellants as per rules requested for the re-test of the samples which was acceded to and accordingly the sample was sent to the Chief Chemist, New Delhi for re-test. But on re-test the Chief Chemist confirmed the result carried out by the Deputy Chemist of Central Excise at Baroda. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the appellants were bound by the result which was obtained on re-test at their request. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
