9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eveals that it was the “sealed” sample, which was sent to them. This makes it clear that the same very sample which was sent by the Revenue to Shriram Institute and which was available with the assessee, has been sent to U.P. Government Food Laboratory. The second objection of the Revenue that it was delayed sending of the sample can also not be appreciated for two reasons. First it was the Revenue itself, which after seizing the goods on 27-2-2010, treated a sample from the same after a gap of six months i.e. on 25-8-2010 and secondly on the ground that the said report of Shriram Institute was never intimated to the appellants before the issuance of the show cause notice and was supplied to them, for the first time, with the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of chewing tobacco and were discharging duty liability accordingly. Their factory was visited by the DGCEE on 27-2-2010, who conducted various checks and verifications. The final product manufactured in the factory was also to be under seizure on account of the same having not been entered into the statutory records. 3. After a period of around six months, samples were drawn from the said seized goods on 25-8-2010 and were sent to Shriram Institute of Industrial Research. As per the report of the said institute, the samples were having lime and katha also apart from the betelnut and tobacco which in any case is present in the chewing tobacco. From the said report of Shriram Institute, Revenue entertained a view that the appellant s f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being procured by the appellant from various raw materials and was being used in the manufacture of their final product. Apart from the fact of absence of evidences, we note that there is a contra report from U.P. Government Food Laboratories. The Revenue s contention that the said experts report was obtained without any intimation and permission of the Revenue cannot be apprehended inasmuch as the said report fairly reveals that it was the sealed sample, which was sent to them. This makes it clear that the same very sample which was sent by the Revenue to Shriram Institute and which was available with the assessee, has been sent to U.P. Government Food Laboratory. The second objection of the Revenue that it was delayed sending of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
