1995 (1) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cs, Man made Fabrics, Cotton Yarn and Man made Yarn. At the relevant time, the appellant used to manufacture controlled variety of cloth under the direction from the Textile Commissioner. During the relevant time, the excise duty was charged at the specific rate of duty based on category of cloth. The category of cloth was formed on the basis of average count of the yarn in the fabrics. On 6-8-1974, the Inspector of Central Excise drew a sample of Sort No. 520 falling under Central Excise Category MBA for test. It was sent to Deputy Chemist of Central Excise at Baroda for test. On test it was found to contain higher average count than that declared by the appellants. Accordingly, a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. 9,889.83 was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of Tata Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 76 (Bom.) wherein it was held that it is obligatory on the revisionary authority to state the reasons as to why the reports and opinions of technical experts and consultants produced in support of the claim made by the assessee is to be ignored. Case of Madhu Wool Spg. Mills v. Union of India and Others, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2200 was also cited wherein it is held that the test of one consignment cannot decide the wool contents of other consignments and that it is not permissible to select that conclusion which suits the authorities if there are different analysis of sample showing different conclusions. To meet the said contentions it was contended by Shri M.K. Jain, Ld. SDR that the fact....