Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 required fresh examination; prior Larger Bench reliance was not conclusive after amendment and remand.

Denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/93 could not rest solely on the fact that duty had been paid on one item while exemption was claimed on another, because the earlier departmental challenge had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court and the prior Tribunal view had been remanded. The Tribunal held that the Larger Bench view relied on below was not conclusive in the later setting, especially where the amended notification required fresh examination. As the original authority had not considered the dispute in light of the later binding position and amendment, the matter had to be reconsidered de novo after granting the assessee a hearing. The impugned order was set aside and remand ordered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 01.04.1993 on the ground that duty had been paid on one item while exemption was claimed on another item was sustainable, and whether the matter required de novo reconsideration.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's earlier case on the same exemption issue had already been remanded, and that the departmental appeal against the earlier Tribunal view had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In that situation, the Larger Bench view relied upon by the lower authority was not to be followed as conclusive. The Tribunal also observed that the earlier decision had been rendered in the context of a different notification regime and that the amended notification required fresh examination. Since the original authority had not decided the matter in the light of the later binding position and the amendment, the dispute had to be reconsidered afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication by the original authority, in favour of the assessee.

---