2016 (11) TMI 1001

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

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 (Judgement / Order / Decisions)<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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1.2012 Annexure P-3 was issued to the petitioners 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 thereafte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olated. Clause 8.8 of the aforesaid provision 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 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions are incorporated and argued that in this case the 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 w....