TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Petitioner's Right to Retest Samples under CBEC Manual</h1> <h3>Shakti Rubber Corporation Versus Union of India And Others</h3> Shakti Rubber Corporation Versus Union of India And Others - TMI Issues:Classification of rubber sheets under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Denial of retesting of samples by Central Excise Department.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of classification of rubber sheets manufactured by the petitioner under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner's products were alleged to be classifiable under a tariff entry attracting a higher duty rate due to the presence of resin. The Central Excise Department relied on test reports from recognized institutions to support their classification. However, the petitioner contended that the reports were vague and incomplete, lacking crucial details like the percentage of resin and chemical properties. The petitioner requested retesting of samples to prepare a proper defense, which was initially denied by the department.2. The main focus of the judgment revolves around the denial of the petitioner's right to retest the samples under CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction 2005. The court emphasized the statutory right granted to the assessee for retesting within 90 days of receiving test results, upon dissatisfaction with the initial examination. The court found the reasons provided by the department for denying retesting to be irrelevant, stating that compliance with the statutory conditions should invariably lead to allowing retesting. The denial of this right was deemed a violation of natural justice and could result in serious civil and criminal liabilities for the manufacturer.3. The court highlighted the importance of upholding statutory rights, especially in cases involving potential penalties and liabilities under the Central Excise Act. It emphasized that when a statute grants the right for retesting, the manufacturer's dissatisfaction with the initial test is sufficient grounds for retesting. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ petition, directing the Central Excise Department to retest specific samples or draw fresh ones for examination. The court also stayed the final hearing pending the retesting reports, ensuring fairness and adherence to statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
