https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41446 Refusal to retest a third sample was treated as consistent with natural justice where two earlier samples had already been tested and showed substantially the same count. Periodic excise sampling was recognised as a practical necessity, and a valid test report could govern yarn produced until the next sample unless the assessee proved a material change in manufacture. The absence of a separate statutory rule for sample testing did not bar reliance on the reports, because the power to draw samples implied the power to test them. A demand was also held sustainable under Rule 9B even though it had been cited under Rules 10 and 10A, since a wrong provision reference does not invalidate an otherwise supportable levy. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:59:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41446 Refusal to retest a third sample was treated as consistent with natural justice where two earlier samples had already been tested and showed substantially the same count. Periodic excise sampling was recognised as a practical necessity, and a valid test report could govern yarn produced until the next sample unless the assessee proved a material change in manufacture. The absence of a separate statutory rule for sample testing did not bar reliance on the reports, because the power to draw samples implied the power to test them. A demand was also held sustainable under Rule 9B even though it had been cited under Rules 10 and 10A, since a wrong provision reference does not invalidate an otherwise supportable levy. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41446