9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER Shri H.S. Rajput, counsel for the petitioners. 2. Shri Gautam Prasad, counsel for respondents. 3. Heard counsel for the parties on admission. 4. Challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 10-2-2015 (Annexure P-2) issued to the petitioners initiating proceedings under Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, petitioners have filed this petition. 5. The petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then only a show cause notice can be issued. It is pointed out that as this statutory requirement has been violated the entire notice is liable to the quashed. 6. Our attention is invited to an order passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3650/2015 (M/s. Sahu Traders v. Union of India and others) on 6-11-2015, wherein after considering Rule 56 and finding breach of sub-rule (2) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to seek re-testing within 90 days. Admittedly in this case after the sample was taken and test report obtained the statutory requirement of communicating the report to the manufacturer and his right to have it re-tested has been denied. It is seen and clear that neither the report has been communicated to the manufacturer nor he was given an opportunity to seek re-testing and challenging the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible from the stage of receipt of the report of testing." 7. In this case also identical factual position exists. Inasmuch as, the show cause notice has been issued along with the report of testing and the report of testing was issued prior thereto as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 56. 8. Accordingly, for the grounds and reasons already considered and decided by this Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
