TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded from the appellants based on the counts ascertained. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants first dealt with appeal in the case of Ramnarayan Mills Ltd. (A. No. E/523/88/MAS) and pleaded that the appellants had challenged the methodology adopted for drawing of samples before the learned lower authority and stated that the Central Excise authorities had prescribed the method vide Trade Notice issued in 1988. He, however, conceded that the period of time in the case involved was prior to this date of issue of this Trade Notice and could not state as to how this Trade Notice issued in 1988 could be relevant for the purpose of proceedings drawn earlier to that period and in any case he could not point out as to in what way the samp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the demand in the case of Narayan Krishna Spinners (P) Ltd. (Appeal No. E/515/89/MAS). He pleaded that the samples were drawn by the authorities on 18-12-1986 and 4 of the samples drawn were found to be in order and only in respect of two samples the count was found to be higher - yarn of 45s. were found to be of 48.7 count and yarn of 55s were found to be of 57.8 count and that on a re-test these counts were found to be 49.3s and 57.1s respectively. He generally reiterated the above pleas made in the case of appeal by M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Mills as above. Further pleading in the case of Sri Ramakrishna Mills, who are appellants in Appeal No. 786/89, he pleaded that the samples were drawn on 11-12-1986 and the demand has been made for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Chief Chemist of the Departmental laboratory. It is observed that the appellants admittedly did not raise any objection to the methodology adopted for the drawal of the samples and it was only after on re-test the results went against them they raised the point regarding defective method of drawal of samples. Neither before the lower authorities nor before us the appellants have been able to show as to in what way the drawal of samples was defective and what should have been the methodology that should have been adopted. The learned Advocate has merely mentioned that the samples were not drawn in terms of the Trade Notice issued in 1988. But, however, the fact remains that the method as set out in the 1988 Trade Notice could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e copy of the Trade Notice, if any, issued in this regard. None has been produced before us till date. We, therefore, direct the authorities to work out the count of the yarn after allowing for tolerance limit as applicable in such cases as a matter of practice either by the Departmental authorities or is shown to be in the standard books or as is accepted in the Trade for the purpose. Adverting to the appellants plea that the demand should not have been made for the period subsequent to the drawal of the samples till the next sample was drawn, we observe that the appellants plea has to be accepted. It is observed that in case the yarn declared by the appellants in respect of a particular lot manufactured or production for the particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
