JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties on admission. 2. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking quashment of a show cause notice Annexure P-6 dated 10-2-2015 issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal. The petitioners are manufacturer of a product named and marketed as "Pan Samagrai". The product manufactured is subject to excise duty in tariff entry 2403 99 20. Petitioners' establishment were inspected on 6-8-2011. Samples were taken and action was initiated for imposition of duty. Petitioners submitted their objection and raised a ground that as the product is not manufactured by the use of tobacco the entry and tariff prescribed under Tariff Entry No. 2401 10 90 will not apply and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the duty. A show cause notice dated 13-1-2012 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 excisable goods, calling for the report from the testing laboratory and thereafter classification has to be done as per the Rules. 3. Referring to the Rules in the earlier writ petition Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel, who represented the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the requirement of the Rules and are contemplated originally in Clause 8 of Chapter 11 of the manual which has statutory force namely the C.B.E. and C. manual of supplementary instructions, 2005. 4. The earlier writ petition was allowed on account of the fact that there was violation of the statutory requirement, inasmuch as, report received after testing was not supplied to the petitioners. However, after the earlier show cause notice was quashed, again, a show cause notice is issued and while issuing the show cause notice against Clause 8 of Chapter 11 of the statutory manual has been violated. 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. 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 of the samples in the laboratories of Central Board of Excise and Customs have been prescribed in Appendix A of the Central Manual of Chemical Laboratories in the Customs Houses containing procedure, rules and regulations by Directorate of Publication, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi 1983 as under, which is reproduced below :..." 5. According to Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel the sample taken at the time of inspection has to be bifurcated into four sealed different packets and marked separately and retained and after the test report are received, along with the test report a copy of sample has to be given to the petitioners, so that the petitioners can exercise the right of re-testing. Shri Khare, took us through the entire Rule as contained in Clause 8, wherein all these provisions 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. 6. Even though respondents have filed their return only to say that after the orders were passed in the earlier writ petition, the test report has been supplied to the petitioners. The petitioners' counsel denies even receipt of the test report. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondents reply are silent with regard to the requirement of Clause 8 particularly in the matter of providing of sample as has been taken at the time of inspection. The petitioners' counsel denies even receipt of the test report. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondents reply are silent with regard to the requirement of Clause 8 particularly in the matter of providing of sample as has been taken at the time of inspection. Once the statutory Rules contemplated a specific provision for testing of the sample, submission of report and the right is conferred on the assessee to seek re-testing by statutory prescribed process, anything done in violation to the statutory Rule cannot be upheld and this Court having considered and quashed similar notice on the ground of violation of statutory Rules, we find that against in the matter of issuing the show cause notice, the statutory provisions have been violated and the rights available to the petitioners for re-testing of sample has been violated. 8. That being so, we allow these petitions. Quash the impugned show cause notice dated 10-2-2015 (Annexure P6) and grant liberty to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with the statute, if so advised. 9. With the aforesaid, both these petitions are allowed and disposed of.