https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89515 Claim for exemption under Notification No. 118/80 was found to have been noted by the lower authority but not actually decided, making the adjudication incomplete. Because the goods were said to be specialised, coverage under Sl. No. 47 required technical examination and, if necessary, expert opinion. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration of the exemption claim after giving the appellant a hearing and allowing expert evidence if required. The alternate plea for classification under Tariff Heading 90.28 was not pressed, and no finding was altered on that abandoned issue. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:16:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89515 Claim for exemption under Notification No. 118/80 was found to have been noted by the lower authority but not actually decided, making the adjudication incomplete. Because the goods were said to be specialised, coverage under Sl. No. 47 required technical examination and, if necessary, expert opinion. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration of the exemption claim after giving the appellant a hearing and allowing expert evidence if required. The alternate plea for classification under Tariff Heading 90.28 was not pressed, and no finding was altered on that abandoned issue. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89515