https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74929 A chemical test report was accepted because allegations of bias and demand of money were vague, unsupported and unparticularised, no defect in the testing process was shown, the Chemical Examiner was not cross-examined, and the sample was independently retested with the same result. Duty could not, however, be computed on a quantity greater than the yarn actually produced in the lot, so the duty base was confined to the actual quantity. The penalty was also found excessive and reduced accordingly. The substantive challenge to the test result failed, while the duty and penalty were modified to that limited extent. en-us Mon, 12 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:34:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74929 A chemical test report was accepted because allegations of bias and demand of money were vague, unsupported and unparticularised, no defect in the testing process was shown, the Chemical Examiner was not cross-examined, and the sample was independently retested with the same result. Duty could not, however, be computed on a quantity greater than the yarn actually produced in the lot, so the duty base was confined to the actual quantity. The penalty was also found excessive and reduced accordingly. The substantive challenge to the test result failed, while the duty and penalty were modified to that limited extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74929