TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. (ii) Revised demand for the period 28-10-1986 to 27-11-1986 amounting to Rs. 17,862.86. (iii) Penalties (a) On the Mills             Rs. 1 lakh (b) On G.M.              Rs. 10,000.00 (c) Office Manager and the two Factory Managers  each Rs. 5,000.00 2. The Show Cause Notice dated 7-5-1986 in question divides the issue into two parts as follows :- Part I : Relating to the period April, 1982 to November, 1986 based only on the private register of the Mills for production and quality control (Annexure - A to SCN). Part II : Relating to the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (S.C.)] which was on Central Excise Tariff on same lines. Simply because CRCL is not equipped to test as per ISI the Order-in-Original discards it, which is illegal. ISI specification here is IS : 1315-1977. 6. Learned Advocate also challenged the conclusion in Para H page 21 of Order-in-Original that they had tempered with samples for their tests. There is no evidence to show this, it is a biased conclusion and an ex parte one, particularly because the Asst. Director of National Test House (NTH) was available for cross-examination but learned Collector did not want it. Since 17 out of 27 tests of NTH showed counts of 42S contrary to Dy. Chief Chemist's findings, conclusion fairly drawn should be in favour o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done in Order-in-Original. Cited Vidharabha Mills - 1979 (4) E.L.T. J 555. Order-in-Original has distinguished it on grounds of seizure. But no seizure was involved as only question of Provisional Assessment was involved. Also cited case of Coimbatore Pioneer Mills reported in C.B.E. & C. Case-law Digest of 1972; (iv) the letter of M/s. Balaji Knitting Mills referred to in para 27 of Order-in-Original is used to draw a wrong conclusion by suppressing the last two sentences thereof which reads as follows : "They complain that they have lost heavily in the previous supply of 50 bags because the count was coarser. Please look into this." This evidence clearly shows that complaint is of supply of coarser counts, quite contrary to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the case-laws of Arunodaya Mills & Kiran Overseas (supra), particularly as no case-laws are cited to the contrary by learned JDR. (ii) The National Test House is not a private laboratory. It is a Central Government Organisation employing highly trained technical personnel and is equipped with modern technical equipment. Therefore, we cannot brush aside the technical accuracy of its reports. (iii) Merely because CRCL is not equipped to test as per IS 1315 : 1977 and hence tests to older standards, we cannot subscribe to the view that ISI standard is irrelevant to the issue. The ISI is the only legally prescribed standard of the Central Government. Therefore, we have to apply the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder-in-Original admits that periodical samples were drawn and tested by the Range Officer as per prescribed procedure. If that be so, then transparency of adjudication proceedings required that the Show Cause Notice and impugned Order-in-Original disclosed the results thereof and if it did not support the case of Revenue, lead evidence/arguments to justify their rejection. But strangely, the impugned Order-in-Original is silent. When this is read with the deposition of the Superintendent regarding Test Memo 5/85, dated 29-10-1985, this silence creates serious doubts in our minds. The just and legally correct conclusion to be drawn is that this silence indicates that either no tests were conducted or the results do not support their case. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the excise duty of yarn, the count of single yarn from a representative sample of each lot, is the correct and relevant methodology and not the average count. The citation of Vidharbha Mills & Coimbatore Pioneer Mills have not been countered or challenged by learned JDR. Therefore, we are duty bound to follow these. Since admittedly the DSPR contains only average counts, therefore any duty demand based solely thereon, without adequate circumstantial corroboration, does not survive. Benefit of doubt must, in such a case, go to the appellants. (iv) We are inclined to accept the true import of the letter of M/s. Balaji Knitting Mills relied upon in the impugned Order-in-Original, by reading the entire letter. Their complaint that they ....