9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III has filed this appeal against the Order dated 22-4-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The respondents are processors of cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics falling under Chapter 52 and 54 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed a cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Respondents requested for a re-test of the sample which was accordingly done. The Chief Chemist on request gave the test report in which the cotton percentage was 68.3 and synthetic filament yarn (polyester) 31.7. The jurisdictional Asstt. Collector passed his order dated 1-4-1991 based on the re-test report and approved the classification list finally under sub-heading 5206.13 of C.E.T.A. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing the Tribunal decision, the differential duty can be collected only for the lot No. 32 and not other lots from which no sample was tested by the Department. 3. The ld. SDR Shri V.K. Puri contended that the Respondents had never declared other lot numbers in their classification list and all these fabrics under various lot numbers have been received from same customer and hence the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department to apply the test results of 1 lot to the fabric covered by the classification list on the peculiar facts of this case. Also relevant is the fact that the Department has taken the stand that it cannot be presumed that the grey fabrics of other lots were of different constituent fibres when they have been supplied by the same customer. It was certainly in the interest of the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... list or in the accompanying declaration, the number of other lots. Another aspect peculiar to this case is that the respondents did ask for a re-test, even with reference to the test report on the one lot, and even at that time they had not brought to the notice of the Department that there are other lots to which the test result may not apply. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
