9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of duty, interest and penalties are imposed on the appellants for the samples drawn by them which were retained for testing purposes. The adjudicating authority relying on the decision of Dabur India Ltd. reported in 2005 (182) ELT 185 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; He also submitted that as the goods have not been removed from the factory units they are not liable to pay duty on them. Moreover they are drawing the samples as per the procedure laid down in para 3.2 and 3.3 of Chapter 11 of the CBEC Manual. In support of his condition, he also relied on the decision of Dabur India Ltd. (supra) and CCE vs. Economic Explosives Ltd. reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the submissions of both sides, I find that in this case the department relates to demand of duty on the samples drawn by the appellants which have been retained by them while clearing their goods. the appellants have taken the benefit of the CBEC Manual chapter 11 para 3.3 wherein it has been clarified when the samples are drawn, no duty is payable at the time of clearance of the goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. (supra). Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Economic Explosives (supra) has gone further more by holding that if the goods were removed for in-house test and proper accounts were maintained, the payment of duty was not necessary on the goods while they were removed for in-house of testing. In the light of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
