1997 (12) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tem No. 18-III(1) and not under Item No. 18-III(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. On test the non-cellulosic fibre content was found to be more than 1/6th by weight when the non-cellulosic fibre content was calculated on the total fibre content. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that there was no contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the sample was not drawn correctly. He rejected the arguments of the appellants that there was an error on the part of the deciding officer and that their factual records should be accepted. 2. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR is present for the respondents Revenue. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits on the basis of their written submissions. 3. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad taken place on 12-6-1990, we do not find any merit in the contention that the hearing was not given by the appellate authority before passing the order. 6. On merits, we find that the sample of the yarn had been drawn on 12-3-1982 for chemical test and it was found that non-cellulosic fibre content was more than 1/6th by weight calculated on the total fibre content. As the non-cellulosic fibre content was more than 1/6th, the yarn was clearly classifiable under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. From the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), it is seen that the sample was again retested in the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi in the office of Chief Chemist and it was reported th....