https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92820 Exemption under Notification No. 115/86-C.E. was denied because the chemical test reports showed that the sample was not Mahuwa oil and did not meet the prescribed Mahuwa oil specifications. The first report identified the sample as other than Mahuwa oil, and the second report recorded rechecking by the Chemical Examiner and non-conformity with the iodine value requirement under IS : 545. The objection that no retest was conducted was rejected on the basis of the record of rechecking. As the sample itself was found not to be Mahuwa oil, the question of its percentage content for claiming the notification benefit did not arise, and the demand was sustained. en-us Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:03:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92820 Exemption under Notification No. 115/86-C.E. was denied because the chemical test reports showed that the sample was not Mahuwa oil and did not meet the prescribed Mahuwa oil specifications. The first report identified the sample as other than Mahuwa oil, and the second report recorded rechecking by the Chemical Examiner and non-conformity with the iodine value requirement under IS : 545. The objection that no retest was conducted was rejected on the basis of the record of rechecking. As the sample itself was found not to be Mahuwa oil, the question of its percentage content for claiming the notification benefit did not arise, and the demand was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92820