https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273247 Refusal to retest a third sample did not breach natural justice where the samples were drawn in the assessee's presence and the earlier reports substantially matched. A valid sample drawn under the excise sampling regime could govern yarn cleared until the next sample date, absent proof of any material change in manufacture. The absence of an express testing rule did not defeat reliance on the reports, and a demand was sustainable under the provisional levy scheme even if it cited the wrong rules, so long as the correct statutory basis existed. The departmental 2.5% tolerance was also not shown to be arbitrary, and the levy challenge failed. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273247 Refusal to retest a third sample did not breach natural justice where the samples were drawn in the assessee's presence and the earlier reports substantially matched. A valid sample drawn under the excise sampling regime could govern yarn cleared until the next sample date, absent proof of any material change in manufacture. The absence of an express testing rule did not defeat reliance on the reports, and a demand was sustainable under the provisional levy scheme even if it cited the wrong rules, so long as the correct statutory basis existed. The departmental 2.5% tolerance was also not shown to be arbitrary, and the levy challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273247