Exemption plea under Notification No. 6/2000 required fresh consideration in the duty dispute over Chapter 30 classification.

The exemption claim under Notification No. 6/2000 had a direct bearing on the differential duty dispute arising from classification of the goods under Chapter 30 of the CETA. Because the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority had not examined whether the clearances were covered by that notification, the omission was treated as a material procedural defect and a miscarriage of justice. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication so the exemption plea could be considered on merits, with the issue resolved in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter required remand because the plea of exemption under Notification No. 6/2000 had not been considered by the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority.

Analysis: The differential duty demand had been sustained on the basis that the goods attracted duty at 16% instead of 8% under Chapter 30 of the CETA. However, the assessee's specific plea that the clearances were covered by Notification No. 6/2000 was not examined by the authorities below. Since the exemption plea had a direct bearing on the merits of the dispute, its non-consideration amounted to a material procedural defect and resulted in miscarriage of justice. The appropriate course was to have the claim examined afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be sent back for fresh adjudication after considering the exemption plea, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

---