Page 146 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

536 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

the goods does not render the evidence relied upon by the Revenue viz., CLRI
report dated 16-10-2009, non est or unreliable.
7. We do not find any force in the contention raised by the Learned
Counsel for the assessee that on the basis of the report adduced by the assessee
before the Tribunal vide dated 22-10-2009, though obtained shortly after the re-
port dated 16-10-2009, the Tribunal was required to direct a retest. Obviously the
sample goods sent by the assessee for testing was not from the lot of the goods
exported or goods confiscated by the Revenue in question. Therefore, obviously
the report obtained by the Revenue Authorities from the sample taken from the
confiscated export goods vide Report dated 16-10-2009, was more reliable rather
than the Report dated 22-10-2009 produced by the assessee.
8. Therefore, the rejection of the prayer by the Learned Tribunal for re-
testing of the sample in question, especially after a long period of about 9 years
was justified. Therefore, the findings of the Learned Tribunal in upholding the
imposition of redemption fine and penalty in question, cannot be said to be
wrong. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeals filed by
the assessee and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 536 (P & H)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh and Girish Agnihotri, JJ.
SUPER OIL COMPANY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Civil Writ Petition No. 16834 of 2016 (O&M), decided on 8-1-2020
Samples - Power to take after Customs clearance - Customs officers or
DRI officers have no power to draw fresh samples from factory premises of
importer after goods had been cleared from Customs Area - Section 144 of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of India [2020 (372) E.L.T. 42
(P & H)] relied on. [para 4(i)]
Show cause notice - Adjudication, non-adjudication thereof - Lapse of
SCN - Since SCN issued on 7-2-2014 has not been adjudicated till date, i.e.,
more than one year after expiry of five years without seeking extension, im-
pugned SCN stands quashed - Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India. [2019 (368) E.L.T. 546 (P & H) relied on]. [para 4(ii)]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Harkaran Dass Vedpal v. Union of India — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 546 (P & H) — Relied on ........... [Paras 3, 4]
Raghav Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2020 (372) E.L.T. 42 (P & H) — Relied on ... [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  146