https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40898 The allowable loss attributable to driage and natural causes was treated as a factual question to be fixed on the circumstances of each case. The competent authorities had consistently accepted 3% as a reasonable allowance, and no material showed that this assessment was arbitrary, illegal, or based on irrelevant considerations. A later attempt to rely on new instances not placed before the original, appellate, or revisional authorities did not justify reopening the matter, particularly where no review power existed. The writ challenge therefore failed, and the fixation of 3% loss with the consequential duty demand was upheld. en-us Fri, 21 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 May 2010 16:18:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40898 The allowable loss attributable to driage and natural causes was treated as a factual question to be fixed on the circumstances of each case. The competent authorities had consistently accepted 3% as a reasonable allowance, and no material showed that this assessment was arbitrary, illegal, or based on irrelevant considerations. A later attempt to rely on new instances not placed before the original, appellate, or revisional authorities did not justify reopening the matter, particularly where no review power existed. The writ challenge therefore failed, and the fixation of 3% loss with the consequential duty demand was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40898