Exemption claim on alternative notification entry must be examined on merits; failure to do so warrants remand.

An exemption claim under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. had to be examined on the alternative entry relied upon, because the appellate authority did not record any finding on Serial No. 42 of Part B covering disposable cannulae and similar articles. The claim was also supported by stated DGHS clarifications, and an exemption plea could be raised for the first time before the appellate authority or in de novo proceedings. As that alternative ground had not been adjudicated, the order could not stand without fresh consideration on merits, and the matter was remanded for de novo examination in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim for exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. had to be examined on the alternative serial entry relied upon, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The lower appellate authority dealt with the refund claim on the footing that the imported goods did not fall within the exemption already considered, but it did not record any finding on the alternative plea based on Serial No. 42 of Part B of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. relating to disposable cannulae and similar articles. The claim was supported by the stated DGHS clarifications, and a claim for exemption could be raised for the first time before the appellate authority or in de novo proceedings. Since that issue had not been adjudicated, the order could not be sustained without fresh examination of the claim on merits.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be set aside and remanded for de novo consideration of the exemption claim in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption claim that has not been adjudicated on an available and relevant notification entry must be considered on merits in appellate or de novo proceedings, and failure to do so justifies remand.

---