https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74895 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. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:47:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74895 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74895