https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124982 Conflicting laboratory reports on imported goods required a fair evidentiary approach: one report described the samples as marble, while another classified them as limestone. Because the goods were imported before the departmental clarification relied on by the department, and the sample had already been sent to the departmental laboratory, refusal to allow retesting and cross-examination was unjustified. The record did not support exclusive reliance on the adverse report when another report supported the importer's claim. The duty demand, confiscation, fine, and penalty were therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124982 Conflicting laboratory reports on imported goods required a fair evidentiary approach: one report described the samples as marble, while another classified them as limestone. Because the goods were imported before the departmental clarification relied on by the department, and the sample had already been sent to the departmental laboratory, refusal to allow retesting and cross-examination was unjustified. The record did not support exclusive reliance on the adverse report when another report supported the importer's claim. The duty demand, confiscation, fine, and penalty were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124982