Conflicting advance rulings on the same goods justified quashing the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

An advance ruling found inconsistent with another ruling on the same projector model was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The court held that where conflicting rulings exist on the same goods, the proper course is de novo reconsideration by the authority after giving prior notice and a personal hearing to the affected party. The impugned order was quashed and the advance ruling proceedings were sent back for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned advance ruling deserved to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in view of the conflicting rulings on the same projector model.

Analysis: The challenged ruling was stated to be inconsistent with another ruling of the same authority concerning the same model of projector. The appropriate course was fresh consideration by the authority, with an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before a new order was passed.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the authority for de novo consideration after giving prior notice and a personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in securing remand of the advance ruling proceedings for reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an advance ruling is shown to be inconsistent with another ruling on the same goods, the proper course is to set aside the impugned ruling and remand the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the affected party.

---