9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : (i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in restricting the demand to the losts manufactured on the date of drawal of sample and the stock available on the date of sample when it is well settled in law that the Department can demand duty from the date of drawal of sample till the date of drawal of subsequent sample in this case from 19-9-1987 to 3-12-1987, unless it can be shown that after taking of the sample, the machinery has been attended to prior to the date of drawal of subsequent sample. In this case, there is no evidence on record to show that the machinery has been attended to during the period 19-9-1987 (date of drawal of sample) to 3-12-1987 (date of drawal of subsequent sample being 4-12-1987). Reliance placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity of yarn manufactured on the date when the sample was taken and not for the entire period between 14-9-1966 and 20-10-1966. The contention of the petitioner is that it cannot be assumed that the count of yarn manufactured by the petitioner on subsequent days was the same as one found on 14-9-1966 and that the test report based on a sample of 840 yards cannot be taken to represent the entire 38638.2 Kgs. produced during the period. It must be remembered that the department cannot be expected to take samples every day and for every bale. It is seen that a sample is taken periodically at regular intervals and the test result of such a sample is taken to govern production of yarn made by the petitioner till the next drawal of the sample. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect in law in restricting the demand to the lots manufactured on the date of drawal of sample and the stock available on date of drawal of sample when it is well settled in law that the Department can demand duty from the date of drawal of sample till the date of drawal of subsequent sample in this case from 19-9-1987 to 3-12-1987, unless it can be shown that after taking of the sample, the machinery had been attended to prior to the date of drawal of subsequent sample? 5. E/Ref/Cross/44/91/MAS. - So far as the Cross-Reference filed by the cross-objectioner is concerned, the point urged is that duty could not be demanded in respect of the goods which were lying in stock and had been manufactured earlier to the lot from which the sample wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
