https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249970 Identification of seized liquor through smell and litmus tests may be accepted where the excise officer's competence, the testing method, and the resulting opinion remain effectively unchallenged, and chemical examination is not invariably necessary. Sensory and field-test evidence, supported by surrounding circumstances, can establish that a substance is an intoxicant. Statutory reporting, seizure, sealing and custody requirements were treated as complied with where the seizure was made by the Station House Officer, the material was sent sealed for examination, and no timely objection to sealing or sampling was raised. Revisional interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted absent legal error, jurisdictional defect or perversity. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:24:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249970 Identification of seized liquor through smell and litmus tests may be accepted where the excise officer's competence, the testing method, and the resulting opinion remain effectively unchallenged, and chemical examination is not invariably necessary. Sensory and field-test evidence, supported by surrounding circumstances, can establish that a substance is an intoxicant. Statutory reporting, seizure, sealing and custody requirements were treated as complied with where the seizure was made by the Station House Officer, the material was sent sealed for examination, and no timely objection to sealing or sampling was raised. Revisional interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted absent legal error, jurisdictional defect or perversity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249970