Exemption notification compliance requires consideration of documentary consumption evidence; ignored records justified remand for fresh adjudication.

Documentary evidence showing consumption of imported goods in the manufacture of final products, including records and certified accounts verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer, had to be considered when examining compliance with Notification No. 224/92. The adjudicating and appellate authorities ignored this material and proceeded as if no evidence had been filed, amounting to non-application of mind. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant a personal hearing, examine the existing record, and consider any further evidence placed by the importers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importers had satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 224/92 by producing documentary evidence of consumption of the imported goods, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The importers had repeatedly produced records, registers and certified accounts showing consumption of the imported material in the manufacture of final products, including documents verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer. The adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority failed to deal with this material and proceeded as though no evidence had been furnished. Such disregard of the existing record amounted to non-application of mind, and the record required reconsideration on the basis of the documentary evidence already filed as well as any further evidence that the importers wished to place.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the importers, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction to reconsider the matter afresh after giving personal hearing and examining the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material documentary evidence bearing on compliance with an exemption notification is already on record, it must be considered before confirming duty demand, and failure to do so justifies remand for fresh adjudication.

---