Mandatory communication of seized sample test results under excise rules was essential before issuing a show cause notice.

Rule 56(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the seized sample to be tested and the result communicated to the manufacturer so the statutory right to seek re-testing could be exercised within time. Because the test report had not been supplied before the show cause notice was issued, the requirement was treated as a mandatory precondition, not a mere procedural formality. Non-compliance went to the root of the initiation of proceedings, and the notice could not be sustained. The show cause notice was therefore quashed for breach of Rule 56(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued under Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable when the test report of the seized sample had not been communicated to the manufacturer as required by Rule 56(2).

Analysis: Rule 56(2) required the officer who seized the sample to have it tested and thereafter communicate the test result to the manufacturer, so that the manufacturer could exercise the statutory right to seek re-testing within the prescribed time. The record showed that the test report had not been supplied before issuance of the notice. The defect was not merely procedural but went to the root of the statutory precondition for initiating action. Since the same requirement had already been treated as mandatory in the earlier decision relied upon, the identical notice could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was unsustainable for non-compliance with Rule 56(2) and was quashed.

---