https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122097 The impugned order was set aside because it failed to address the alternative classification claim under Chapter sub-heading 2001.10, the exemption claim under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., and the plea on cum-duty price. A fresh adjudication was required so that all issues could be examined on the material and citations relied upon, and a speaking order could be passed after observing natural justice. The matter was therefore remanded to the Original Authority for reconsideration on all points. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:35:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122097 The impugned order was set aside because it failed to address the alternative classification claim under Chapter sub-heading 2001.10, the exemption claim under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., and the plea on cum-duty price. A fresh adjudication was required so that all issues could be examined on the material and citations relied upon, and a speaking order could be passed after observing natural justice. The matter was therefore remanded to the Original Authority for reconsideration on all points. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122097