9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r & Attorney, for the Respondents. [Order per: G. Sankaran, President]. - In this case, the question involved is how to apply the tolerance allowed with regard to test results. On this depends the further question of classification of the goods in dispute and the liability of the respondents to the duty that the Revenue considers is due from them. On 26-3-1981, the respondents cleared a quantit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limitation of 6 months, it was time-barred. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh is now in appeal before the Tribunal against this order. 2. We have heard Shri Jayanarayan Nair, DR, for the appellant-Collector and Shri C.L Maheshwari, Law Officer and Attorney of the respondents. 3. The ground put forth in the appeal is that even after allowing the tolerance of 2.5% as per Board's lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmining the percentage of rayon or artificial silk contents of mixed fabrics in tests an allowance of 2.5% may be given in favour of the manufacturer on account of unevenness in the deniar of the rayon or other yarns used in making up the fabrics and subsequent process of the woven fabrics. When the Board itself has laid down that the tolerance should be in favour of the assessee we do not see why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason on record as to why the demand notice was not issued within the normal limitation of 6 months. (The goods were cleared on 26-3-1981 and the notice of demand on 24-3-1982). When the Board itself has considered that there is a possibility of error in the results arrived on test of mixed fabrics, there should be some tangible evidence, to be adduced by the Department, that the assessee's decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
