https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77839 Discrepancy in the quantity of sample drawn and the quantity reflected in the laboratory report, together with variation in the description of the recovered substance, justified permitting re-testing of the sample. The earlier precedent was read as recognising that there is no absolute bar to re-testing, not as requiring every request to be allowed. The order directing production of the case property and weighing machine for re-testing was therefore upheld, and the challenge was rejected. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77839 Discrepancy in the quantity of sample drawn and the quantity reflected in the laboratory report, together with variation in the description of the recovered substance, justified permitting re-testing of the sample. The earlier precedent was read as recognising that there is no absolute bar to re-testing, not as requiring every request to be allowed. The order directing production of the case property and weighing machine for re-testing was therefore upheld, and the challenge was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77839