TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essional rate of duty under Notification 188A/62-C.E., dated 3 November 1962. A sample of the yarn drawn on 30th June, 1983 was found to be of 219.8 deniers on test whereas exemption under notification was admissible only to nylon yarn of 210 deniers with tolerance of 4%. They have assailed the orders of the lower authorities on the ground, inter alia, that the sample drawn was not representative in character, and was not drawn from the yarn deposited in the bonded store room, but from the production line , that they were not informed at the time of drawing the sample the purpose for which it was taken, that the method of determining the denier of a consignment should be as per the practice laid down by the International Bureau of Standard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of Board s instructions, be applied to the goods manufactured in the next calendar month viz., in July, 1983. He has also relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Chirala Co-operative Spinning Mills [1980 (6) E.L.T. 174] in which it was held in para 5 that if the party had shown sufficiently that they had taken every step to produce a lesser count of yarn than the one represented by the sample taken earlier, the Central Excise officers cannot base the test result on the samples of the entire quantity of yarn manufactured during the period for levying higher rate of duty. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise, Range III, Bombay P Division and these have been sealed in our presence. One of the sealed sample has been given to us. We are perfectly satisfied with the manner of sampling. Dated: 30-6-1983 Sd/- Signature of the owner or representative of factory Nirlon Synthetic Fibres Chemicals Ltd. Goregaon East, Bombay-400 063. Sd/- Signature of the Inspector of Central Excise 5. If we look at the letter No. Gen 3/Nirlon/Samples/83/997 dated 14-7-1983 from the Inspector of Central Excise, Range III, Bombay P Division addressed to the Dy. Chief Chemist, Bombay regarding the test of the sample drawn on 30-6-1983, column No. (8) is as under :- 8. The sample is to be tested for : To ascertain the deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derstandable basis for the claim that this tolerance limit is in addition to the limits followed by professional bodies. Moreover, according to well-settled principles of interpretation of exemption notification, there is no scope for any addition to its language or for taking away anything which is specifically provided for in such notifications. We do not, therefore, see any merit in this argument and reject it. Finally, the plea has been made that their own record for denierage should be accepted. It would ordinarily have been possible to do so but, when, on verification, the denierage is found to be different from what appears on their record, an explanation was sought. This resulted in the present proceedings which have been carried on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d). 9. It will appear from the above extract, and particularly the above portions underlined, that the Assistant Collector had himself taken the correct and judicious view of the matter and had confirmed the demand only for an amount of Rs. 17,28,484.50 as against the amount of Rs. 76,83,238.07 which was demanded in the show cause notice. The decision to restrict the demand to a period of one month was also in conformity with the spirit of the instructions of the Board cited by Shri Dave himself during the hearing. 10. There is no basis for the argument of Shri Dave that the result of test for sample drawn on 30th June, 1983 should not be applied to the next calendar month. Neither Board s instructions (which prescribe the frequency of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
