TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 229 (M. P.)<br>MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT - HC<br>Dated:- 4-11-2016<br>W.P. No. 100/2016 & W.P. No. 102/2016 - -<br>Central Excise<br>Rajendra Menon (ACJ) And Anjuli Palo, JJ. ORDER Shri Anil Khare, Senior Counsel with Shri Shobhitaditya Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Prasad, counsel for Respondents No.1 to Heard counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners in this regard. The petitioners approached this Court, challenging the said show cause notice in W.P. No.3649/2015 and W.P. No.3650/2015 and came out with a case that Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules has been specifically formulated for the purpose of testing the exercisable good, calling for the report from the testing laboratory and thereafter classification has to be done as per th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reads as under :- "8.8 whenever the assessee is dissatisfied with the test carried out by Chemical Examiner he can apply to Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise concerned for re-test within 90 days from the date on which the test result was communicated to him after payment of the prescribed fees. The prescribed fee for re-testing of the samples in the laboratories of Central Board o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of Clause 8.8 as reproduced hereinabove is not complied with, inasmuch as, the sample has not been provided to the petitioners. He submits that on this ground alone as the statutory Rule is violated, the show cause notice is liable to be quashed. Even though respondents have filed their return only to say that after the orders were passed in the earlier writ petition, the test report....