Sequencing of export incentive scheme benefits required fresh adjudication after the policy and public notice were not fully considered.

The dispute concerned whether import benefits under the relevant export incentive schemes could be availed in the sequence claimed and whether the policy and DGFT public notice governing simultaneous availment had been properly applied. The record showed that the original authority had not fully considered the timing of the imports, the appellant's explanation, and the effect of the public notice. The CESTAT therefore set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication so the sequence of events and the policy prescription could be examined in context. The matter was not finally decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the sequence in which the import benefits under the relevant export incentive schemes were availed and on the effect of the policy and public notice governing simultaneous availment. The record indicated that the original authority had not fully considered the timing of the imports, the appellant's explanation regarding the scheme benefits, and the impact of the DGFT public notice. In these circumstances, a fresh adjudication was considered necessary so that the sequence of events and the policy prescription could be examined in context.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not finally determined on merits and was restored for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

---