9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-original No. 38/88, dated 13-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangahad. 2. It was alleged that the appellants Wrapping Registers indicated yarn of higher counts than what was declared to the department and on which duty was paid. 3. Arguing for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not prevail. Moreover, the Collector ought to have given tolerance as per Board's orders dated 14-5-1987. He has committed an error of law in holding that since the period involved was anterior to this date, Board's earlier instructions prescribing tolerance had to be taken into account. He submits that their bona fides would be evident by the fact that not in a single case, there was any variati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that entry made in the Wrapping register did not conform, in regard to count, with the declaration. The Tribunal however, held that entries made in private records could not be relied upon in the absence of corroborative evidence. They also held that during the relevant period, there was not a single variation in the test results in regard to counts. On this ground, the Tribunal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We are however, unable to agree with the observations of the learned Collector that tolerance indicated in the CBEC letter of May, 1987 would not apply to the period in question. Tolerance limit only recognises the fact that there can be an error in spinning, sampling and testing of yarn. These instructions issued in May, 1987 have to be held as indicating what should be the correct toler ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
