https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91000 Conflicting laboratory test reports on excisability and classification required fresh adjudication, because a post-adjudication clarification from the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory introduced material not examined by the original authority. The later clarification had to be tested at the adjudicatory stage before it could affect the factual basis of the dispute. The later sample's test result could not be applied mechanically to an earlier period where product history, manufacturing process and composition were in issue; each period required separate factual examination. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration on the evidentiary value of the reports and surrounding material. en-us Wed, 12 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:12:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91000 Conflicting laboratory test reports on excisability and classification required fresh adjudication, because a post-adjudication clarification from the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory introduced material not examined by the original authority. The later clarification had to be tested at the adjudicatory stage before it could affect the factual basis of the dispute. The later sample's test result could not be applied mechanically to an earlier period where product history, manufacturing process and composition were in issue; each period required separate factual examination. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration on the evidentiary value of the reports and surrounding material. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91000