Classification and exemption dispute on clear float glass remanded for fresh adjudication, with no interference in the appellate direction.

Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer had already been treated in prior Tribunal decisions as classifiable under CTH 70051090 and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore remitted the classification and exemption dispute for de novo consideration by the original authority. As the remand was neither shown to be patently illegal nor perverse, and the nature of the goods still required factual adjudication, the appellate forum declined to interfere. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the direction for fresh decision on merits was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the classification and exemption claim relating to Clear Float Glass warranted interference.

Analysis: The classification dispute had already been considered in prior Tribunal decisions, which held that clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer is classifiable under CTH 70051090 and is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011. In that backdrop, the Commissioner (Appeals) remitted the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration. The remand was not shown to be patently illegal or perverse. The dispute on the nature of the goods remained one requiring factual adjudication by the proper authority, and the appellate forum ordinarily does not interfere with such remand directions.

Conclusion: The remand order did not call for interference and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate authority's direction for fresh adjudication was maintained, leaving the matter to be decided afresh on merits by the original authority.

---