Exemption eligibility for bonded-premises air-conditioners justified remand where no merits finding had been made.

The exemption for split room air-conditioners depended on use in connection with manufacture and packing of articles within the bonded premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide that eligibility question on merits and instead remanded the matter for obtaining necessary permission from the Development Commissioner and for fresh adjudication. Because no substantive finding had been recorded on exemption eligibility, the remand was treated as and no interference was warranted. The Revenue's challenge to the remand therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the question of exemption eligibility for split room air-conditioners installed within the bonded premises, without deciding the matter on merits.

Analysis: The exemption notification applied only where air-conditioners were used in connection with manufacture and packing of articles. The lower appellate authority had not recorded any decision on the merits of that eligibility question and instead sent the matter back for necessary permission from the Development Commissioner and fresh adjudication. In such a situation, no substantive finding had been reached that warranted appellate interference.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---