1981 (6) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case and considered the submissions made by M/s. Aggarwal Metal Works (hereinafter called the party) in their reply to the show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and at the time of hearing. 2. In this case, the Government have issued a show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act proposing to review the impugned Order-in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deposed at the original stage by one of the witnesses who is not contradicted by the Department. (ii) They had disputed the representative character of the samples even before the test result was received and that therefore it is not correct to say that they had not challenged the test results. The Supdt. who had visited their factory for taking fresh samples had observed on measurement tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... could be seen as not exceeding 1.22 mm. (v) The order of the original authority confiscating the seized goods and demanding duty on the circles cleared prior to the date of seizure on the presumption that the parent circles used in the manufacture of the buckets cleared were of higher thickness was erroneous. They relied on the test report furnished by the National Test House which reveals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X