https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90689 The case involved the classification of yarn under the Central Excise Tariff. The Adjudicating Authority classified the yarn under Tariff Item 18E, contrary to the Appellants' classification under Tariff Item 18 III(ii). Discrepancies in test results from different laboratories led to conflicting findings. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the importance of adherence to testing procedures and proper sample identification. Due to procedural lapses and unreliable test results, the duty demand was upheld. The Appellate Tribunal supported this decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with testing protocols and accurate classification under the Tariff. en-us Fri, 11 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90689 The case involved the classification of yarn under the Central Excise Tariff. The Adjudicating Authority classified the yarn under Tariff Item 18E, contrary to the Appellants' classification under Tariff Item 18 III(ii). Discrepancies in test results from different laboratories led to conflicting findings. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the importance of adherence to testing procedures and proper sample identification. Due to procedural lapses and unreliable test results, the duty demand was upheld. The Appellate Tribunal supported this decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with testing protocols and accurate classification under the Tariff. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90689