(1.) IN this case, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash certain additional levies made on him by the respondents under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
(2.) ON 14-9-1966 the Supervising Officer of the Central Excise department drew samples of yarn said to be 40 counts for the purpose of testing. ON the day of drawal of sample, the petitioner had already packed into bales ready for clearance 69 bales of cotton yarn out of the yarn manufactured previous to 14-9-1966. The sample so drawn was 840 yards in length. The Supervising Officer who took the sample divided the sample into three parts and handed over one to the petitioner, forwarded another to the Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Madras and retained the third. The Chemical Examiner reported that the sample sent to him was found to be on analysis of 38.5 N.F. after allowing for a tolerance of 2.5 per cent. In pursuance of this report the Supervising Officer raised additional demand on 24-11-1966 for a sum of Rs. 13, 523.37 purporting to be one under Rules 10 and 10A in respect of 213 bales (including 69 bales previously packed), being the quantity manufactured between 14-9-1966 and 20-10-1966 on which latter date the next sample was drawn. At that stage the petitioner requested the supervising officer for re-testing the second sample by the Chief Chemical Examiner, Delhi. The Supervising Officer complied with the petitioner's request and sent the second sample for analysis by the Chief Chemical Examiner. He found the sample to be more than 34 NF but less than 40 NF even after giving a tolerance of 2.5 per cent. Based on the two test reports the differential duty of Rs. 13, 523.37 was levied by the Assistant Collector on the petitioner on the quantity of cotton yarn cleared between 14-9-1966 and 20-10-1966 on the basis that the count was more than 34 NF. Before the Assistant Collector the petitioner required the third sample in his possession to be tested. The Assistant Collector, however, refused to have the third sample tested as requested by the petitioner, and confirmed the demand referred to above.
(3.) THERE was a further revision by the petitioner to the first respondent under Section 36 of the Act. The first respondent held that no additional levy could be made in respect of 69 bales which were already manufactured, packed and kept ready for delivery prior to the taking of the samples on 14-9-1966, but confirmed the levy in respect of the balance of 144 bales of cotton yarn produced and cleared between 14-9-1966 and 20-10-1966.