TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the period in dispute is December, 1987 to September, 1993. The factory was sold on 1-10-1993 to M/s. Terene Fibres (I) Ltd. (TFIL in short) who started manufacturing polyester staple fibre in their factory. On 30-4-1996 the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) vide Order dated 14-9-2000 directed the Assistant Commissioner to decide de novo after issue of Show Cause Notice and with a specific direction that Dy. Chief Chemist s report of only those samples which were drawn during the period in dispute can be relied upon. The Dy. Commissioner without adhering to the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the same test report of the sample d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as testing of a sample is concerned for which this sample was tested out of the goods produced much after the period for which the demand has been raised and thus the result of tests cannot be applied to the goods which were produced much before the date of taking samples . He also relied on another decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Doddaballapur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t said decision squarely covers the issue involved in the present case in favour of the appellants, hence the impugned Order may be set aside and the appeal filed by the appellants may be allowed. 2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly concedes that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above said decision. 3. After hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
