https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73783 Classification of the product between Tariff Item 15AA and Tariff Item 15A(1) depended on laboratory evidence showing whether it had the surface-active properties of an organic surface active agent or preparation. The departmental chemical examiner and Chief Chemist reported that the sample lacked those properties. In the absence of any specific challenge to the competence, equipment, bias, or prejudice of the departmental laboratories, a general dissatisfaction with the reports was insufficient to reject them. Fresh objections raised at the appellate stage, including molecular weight and degree of polymerisation, could not be entertained when they had not been pressed before the adjudicating authority. The direction for re-testing by an independent laboratory was therefore not justified. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:48:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73783 Classification of the product between Tariff Item 15AA and Tariff Item 15A(1) depended on laboratory evidence showing whether it had the surface-active properties of an organic surface active agent or preparation. The departmental chemical examiner and Chief Chemist reported that the sample lacked those properties. In the absence of any specific challenge to the competence, equipment, bias, or prejudice of the departmental laboratories, a general dissatisfaction with the reports was insufficient to reject them. Fresh objections raised at the appellate stage, including molecular weight and degree of polymerisation, could not be entertained when they had not been pressed before the adjudicating authority. The direction for re-testing by an independent laboratory was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73783