https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83627 Jurisdiction depended on whether the dispute involved only a factual question on emergence of an intermediate plastic film or also required interpretation of an exemption notification and the effective rate of duty. The jurisdictional objection failed because the case raised questions of notification interpretation, duty rate, and assessment correctness, bringing it within the Special Bench's scope. On the merits, the appellants limited their contest to the correct duty position and accepted that the final and intermediate product assessments were interlinked. As the exemption issue under Notification No. 217/86 had not been examined earlier, the matter was remanded for reconsideration at the adjudicating stage with liberty to make submissions consistent with that undertaking. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:27:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83627 Jurisdiction depended on whether the dispute involved only a factual question on emergence of an intermediate plastic film or also required interpretation of an exemption notification and the effective rate of duty. The jurisdictional objection failed because the case raised questions of notification interpretation, duty rate, and assessment correctness, bringing it within the Special Bench's scope. On the merits, the appellants limited their contest to the correct duty position and accepted that the final and intermediate product assessments were interlinked. As the exemption issue under Notification No. 217/86 had not been examined earlier, the matter was remanded for reconsideration at the adjudicating stage with liberty to make submissions consistent with that undertaking. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83627