Failure to examine Rule 57H(7) applicability made the Tribunal's order infirm and led to remand for fresh decision.

The Tribunal's order was found materially infirm because it failed to examine whether Rule 57H(7) applied where the exemption notification was said not to depend on the value or quantity of clearances. That issue went to the root of the respondent's liability, and the omission amounted to a failure to consider a crucial contention, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on all contentions, including the applicability of Rule 57H(7).

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse for failing to examine the applicability of Rule 57H(7) where the exemption notification was alleged not to be based on the value or quantity of clearances.

Analysis: The omitted issue went to the root of the dispute because the respondent's liability under Rule 57H(7) depended upon the nature of the exemption notification. Since the Tribunal did not consider this crucial contention at all, the order suffered from a material infirmity and raised a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on all contentions, including the applicability of Rule 57H(7).

---