https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95357 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. en-us Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 14:52:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95357 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95357