https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87979 After rejection of the primary classification claim under Heading 84.79, the alternative claim that the goods fell under Heading 70.14 had not been examined by the Commissioner. Because no finding was recorded on that alternative contention, the proper classification issue remained incomplete. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration, with the Commissioner directed to hear the appellant and decide whether the goods were eligible for classification under Heading 70.14. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:25:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87979 After rejection of the primary classification claim under Heading 84.79, the alternative claim that the goods fell under Heading 70.14 had not been examined by the Commissioner. Because no finding was recorded on that alternative contention, the proper classification issue remained incomplete. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration, with the Commissioner directed to hear the appellant and decide whether the goods were eligible for classification under Heading 70.14. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87979