Proforma credit and exemption notification claims required reconsideration after unanswered pleas on input duty adjustment were overlooked.

Entitlement to Notification No. 175/84-C.E. and proforma credit set-off under Rule 56A required fresh consideration because the original authority had not addressed those pleas. The appellate order had mainly proceeded on the basis that Notification No. 174/84-C.E. was unavailable where Rule 56A credit had been taken, but it did not examine whether Notification No. 175/84-C.E. applied on the facts or whether duty suffered on inputs and countervailing duty had to be factored into the liability computation. The question whether the processes amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) was not treated as arising for decision. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No. 175/84-C.E. and the related proforma credit set-off under Rule 56A, and whether the matter required remand because those pleas had not been considered by the original authority.

Analysis: The appellants had specifically pleaded entitlement to Notification No. 175/84-C.E. and to credit of duty suffered by the inputs under Rule 56A. The order under appeal proceeded mainly on the footing that Notification No. 174/84-C.E. was unavailable where credit under Rule 56A had been taken, but did not examine the applicability of Notification No. 175/84-C.E. in the facts of the case. The original authority also did not address the plea that the duty suffered by the inputs and the countervailing duty should be taken into account while computing the liability. The question whether the processes amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) was not treated as arising for decision in the appeal.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the original authority for reconsideration of the unanswered pleas.

---