Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J The petitioner has been carrying on the manufacture of an article called 'paint oil' besides another article called 'body varnish' since the year 1961. She, however, did not take out any licence for the manufacture of the said paint oil under the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Presumably she was under the impression that the said article manufactured by her is not excisable under the Central Excise Act. The Central Excise Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the Authorities) for the first time, on 16-9-1964, inspected the shop of the petitioner and considered the paint oil manufactured by the petitioner to be an article on which excise duty is leviable. According to the Authorities the paint oil might come under the definitions of 'varnish'. But as they were not quite as to whether the paint oil had the requisite properties of 'varnish' they took 'samples' of paint oil from the petitioner's shop and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner, Madras, for analysis of the sample, reported that the sample contained composition and properties of 'varnish'. A copy of the analyst's report was not, however, furnished to the petitioner then and there and her objections called for in relation thereto. On the basis of the report, the Authorities sought to prosecute the petitioner for not taking out a licence under the Act. But that proceedings was compounded on the petitioner paying a nominal fine. Subsequently demands were made by the Authorities on the petitioner for payment of excise duty in relation to the paint oil manufactured and cleared by the petitioner from 1961 to 21st October, 1964. The petitioner challenged the said demands by filing appeals before appellate authority wherein she was unsuccessful. But a revision preferred by the petitioner to the Central Government is said to be pending. But as the demands were sought to be enforced by the Authorities the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for quashing the demands, on various grounds. 2. But a revision preferred by the petitioner to the Central Government is said to be pending. But as the demands were sought to be enforced by the Authorities the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for quashing the demands, on various grounds. 2. One of the grounds urged by the Learned Counsel for petitioner is that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to put forward her case that the paint oil manufactured by her will not come under the entry 'varnish' which is excisable under item 14(II) of Schedule I under the Act, and that decision has been taken by the Authorities unilaterally by bringing 'paint oil' manufactured by her within the entry 'varnish' on the basis of an analyst report, a copy whereof was not given to her and her objections called for and considered before the demands were issued. It was also contended by the petitioner that there is no definition for the term 'varnish' in the Act and that in the absence of a specific and clear definition of the term, the Authorities have acted arbitrarily in bringing 'paint oil' within the term of 'varnish'. It is also contended that there has been a hostile discrimination in bringing the paint oil manufactured by the petitioner alone under the levy of Central Excise while other manufactures producing similar products have been left untouched. 3. As regards the first contention, we are inclined to hold in favour of the petition. The petitioner has been manufacturing the paint oil from the year 1961 and till 16-9-1964, when the Authorities took 'samples' of the said oil and no steps were taken to classify the same as an excisable article coming under the item 'varnish'. Even at the time when 'samples' were taken, the Authorities were not quite clear as to whether 'paint oil' can be brought under Item 14(II) aforesaid. That was why they took 'samples' and sent it to the Chemical Examiner, Madras, for analysis. The Chemical Examiner, in his report reported that paint oil had the required composition and the properties of 'varnish'. But a copy of this report was not furnished to the petitioner and her objections called for before a decision to levy excise duty was taken. The Chemical Examiner, in his report reported that paint oil had the required composition and the properties of 'varnish'. But a copy of this report was not furnished to the petitioner and her objections called for before a decision to levy excise duty was taken. The Authorities unilaterally proceeded to issue demands without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to establish her stand that the paint oil manufactured by her will not come under the term 'varnish'. As a matter of fact, when demands were issued on the basis that paint oil will come under the term 'varnish' and as such excisable, the petitioner called upon Authorities to send the article for retest. But the Authorities furnish her with a copy of the report of the Chemical Examiner. The report was furnished to her after considerable hesitation and delay. After seeking the report the petitioner requested the Authorities rejected her request on the ground that it was made after considerable delay and was time-barred, as it was filed more than a month after the report was brought to the notice of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends on the basis of the above fact, is that she had no opportunity to verify the correctness of the Chemical Examiner's report by means of retest of the paint oil and that she had no effective opportunity to establish that the paint oil will not come under the term 'varnish'. In paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that "samples" of the paint oil were taken from the stock of the petitioner in her factory on 16-9-1964 and was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Madras, for analysis and that the petitioner duly signed the copy of the requisition in token of her having been present at the time of the drawing of the samples of the quantity of three ounces. It is not in dispute that in taking samples according to Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules the normal procedure is that three samples of the article are to be taken. But a perusal of the copy of requisition sent to the Chemical Examiner by the Authorities shows that only one sample containing three ounces of paint oil was taken and it was only that sample, that was sent to the Chemical Examiner. But a perusal of the copy of requisition sent to the Chemical Examiner by the Authorities shows that only one sample containing three ounces of paint oil was taken and it was only that sample, that was sent to the Chemical Examiner. In his report, after giving his findings, the Chemical Examiner has observed that in future samples containing at least 250 ml. are to be sent for purposes of test. That observation shows that the quantity of three ounces of paint oil sent for analysis was insufficient for an effective test. It is not in dispute that the procedure for taking samples by the Department is that three separate samples of the requisite quantity are to be taken, bottled, corked and sealed, and one bottle to be handed over to the party, another retained by the Department and the third sent up for chemical analysis. The taking of three samples is to ensure that if the test of one sample sent to Chemical Examiner is found to be defective or proper either the party or the Department as the case may be, may send the sample remaining with either, for a retest. The record shows that only one sample of three ounces of paint oil was taken and that was sent for chemical examination, for which purposes at least 250 ml. of quantity was required, and as there was no further sample available for retest, it is only because of this the petitioner's request for retest was turned down on the ground that it was belated. As a matter of fact, we find even the purported of the analyst report was furnished to the petitioner only after considerable delay and the request from the petitioner for a retest has been made within one month from the date of such furnishing. Therefore, the rejection of the application for retest on the ground that it was barred by time was only because no sample was available for being sent for retest after the only sample was tested by the Chemical Examiner and exhausted. Though in the counter-affidavit a stand was taken that three samples of paint oil were taken on 16-9-1964 the record placed before us and the copy of the requisition sent to the Chemical Examiner show that only one sample of three ounces was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Though in the counter-affidavit a stand was taken that three samples of paint oil were taken on 16-9-1964 the record placed before us and the copy of the requisition sent to the Chemical Examiner show that only one sample of three ounces was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. As a matter of fact, even in the stock register maintained by the petitioner relating to her manufacturing business, there is no entry as against the date 16-9-1964 that three samples had been taken in the presence of the party and one sample was handed over to the party in the usual manner. On the other hand, when samples were taken on a similar occasion on 29-11-1967, there is entry in the register that four bottles of samples have been taken for the test purposes as per the Assistant Collector's order and one sample was handed over to the party. In view of the fact which appears to be clear from the record that only one sample was taken on 16-9-1964 and no sample was given to the party so as to enable her to have a retest or a counter-test, if necessary, the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner did not have reasonable opportunity to establish her case that the paint oil manufactured by her is not 'varnish' as classified by the Authorities. 4. The proceedings initiated by the Authorities for bringing the article 'paint oil' manufactured by the petitioner under Central Excise levy is quasi-judicial in nature, and therefore, before the Authorities took a final decision that the article manufactured is varnish they should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to establish her stand. In this case, the Authorities themselves felt a doubt as to whether 'paint oil' manufactured by the petitioner is 'varnish' or not, and therefore they took 'samples' and sent 'sample' to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and report. When they received the Chemical Examiner's report, they cannot unilaterally act upon it and fasten liability to pay excise duty on the petitioner, especially when all along she has been contending that the paint oil manufactured by her will not come under 'varnish'. When they received the Chemical Examiner's report, they cannot unilaterally act upon it and fasten liability to pay excise duty on the petitioner, especially when all along she has been contending that the paint oil manufactured by her will not come under 'varnish'. The Authorities should have furnished a copy of the Chemical Examiner's report to the petitioner and called for the representations, if any on the report, and if the report was successfully attached by the petitioner, retest should have been ordered, or a fresh sample taken and tested. Therefore, the demand made by the Authorities in this case proceeds only on the decision taken by them as to the excisability of the paint oil manufactured by the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to establish the contrary. 5. The respondents have contended before this Court that the petitioner has admitted her liability to pay the excise duty on the paint oil manufactured by her when the substance of the report of the Chemical Examiner was brought to her notice, and that she had in fact given two statements to the effect that she will abide by the report of the Chemical Examiner. We are not in a position to construe the statement alleged to have been given by the petitioner as amounting to her admission to accept the Chemical Examiner's report as being correct and to pay the excise duty on that basis. The statement said to have been given by the petitioner merely record the fact that the Chemical Examiner's report is to the effect that the paint oil manufactured by her is 'varnish' and that she is willing to compound the proceedings taken out for her default is not taking out a licence therefor. Though the petitioner makes a reference to the Chemical Examiner's report in the said alleged statements, she does not appear to accept the correctness of the test report of the Chemical Examiner. That is why immediately after the receipt of the demands, which she impugnes in this proceedings, she asked for a fresh test being conducted. But that could not obviously be done because there was no other sample available, and the only sample taken had been sent up to the Chemical Examiner. That is why immediately after the receipt of the demands, which she impugnes in this proceedings, she asked for a fresh test being conducted. But that could not obviously be done because there was no other sample available, and the only sample taken had been sent up to the Chemical Examiner. In our view the Authorities have chosen to act on a material without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to effectively challenge the correctness of the same and this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. We are, therefore, of the view that the demands in this case cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the fact that the demands by the Authorities on the petitioner are quashed even on the first of the contentions urged by the petitioner, the other contentions are not dealt with as being unnecessary. It is, however, open to the Authorities to proceed to take such proceedings as they consider necessary in respect of the paint oil manufactured by the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.