2004 (8) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of filament yarn and they are availing the benefit of Notification No. 31/93-C.E., dated 23-2-93. The benefit of the notification was denied for the period 23-4-93 to 1-6-93 on the ground that the yarn was of more than 210 deniers. As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S 7703 (Part-I) 1990 which is a distinct and different procedure. On pointing out by the appellant, the adjudicating authority again referred the matter to the Director (Revenue Laboratories) and the Director's reply vide letter dated 31-1-2001 by saying that both the methods are basically same. The contention is that as the sample was not tested as per the procedure prescribed under the Tariff, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 54 was not followed while testing the samples. The clarification given by the Director (Revenue Laboratories) by letter dated 31-1-2001 will also not help the case of Revenue in this letter, the Director (Revenue Laboratories) mentioned that both the procedures are basically same. We find that when the procedure was prescribed under the Tariff i.e. the demand on the basis of test not following the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X