Exemption notification claims can be examined on merits even if concessional duty was not earlier extended.

A claimant is not barred from seeking the benefit of an applicable concessional notification merely because it was not earlier applied in the approved classification list. The notification provided a lower duty rate for single ingredient formulations covered by the specified bulk-drug schedule, and eligibility had to be examined on merits against complete supporting particulars. The remand directing the Assistant Collector to consider the exemption claim on production of the required data was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No. 29/88 despite the approved classification list showing a higher rate of duty, and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter for examination of that benefit.

Analysis: The notification granted a lower rate of duty for single ingredient formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the second schedule to the Drugs Price (Control) Order. The fact that the benefit had not earlier been extended did not prevent the assessee from claiming it. The Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore correctly directed the Assistant Collector to examine eligibility for the notification on production of complete supporting data.

Conclusion: The remand directing consideration of the notification benefit was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant is not precluded from seeking the benefit of an applicable exemption or concessional notification merely because it was not earlier granted, and the claim must be examined on merits on production of the required particulars.

---