TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (3) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aghavachari, Member (J)]. - Samples were taken on 24-6-1981 of cotton yarn manufactured by the appellants M/s. Mettur Beardsell Ltd., to verify whether they were of declared counts 34 and 36, as mentioned by the appellants. The report of the chemical examiner disclosed that the counts were 35.65 and 38.39 respectively. Notice dated 14-10-1981 was issued to the appellants as to why the diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. We have heard Shri R.K. Saini, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Zutshi for the department. 3. Though in the grounds of appeal several grounds have been raised to contest the impugned order Shri Saini stated that he would make submissions with reference to one of the grounds only and would not be pressing the other grounds. 4. Shri Saini submitted that when the Assistant Collector rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that since thus the right of retest is a natural right the period of 90 days mentioned in Rule 56(4) was not a period of limitation in the strict sense and any request for retest made after 90 days cannot be rejected as if it had become barred by time but that it should have been considered on merits and allowed if reasonable grounds are shown why the request was not made within the 90 days pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available to the assistant Collector and ought to have been exercised. The only ground stated for a request for exercising this option is that the appellants were unaware of the time limit mentioned in Rule 56(4) and had not, therefore, applied for retest within time. In appreciating this argument it must be remembered that the appellants M/s. Mettur Beardsell Ltd., are not a small scale industry ....