https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258398 The Tribunal's order was found materially infirm because it failed to examine whether Rule 57H(7) applied where the exemption notification was said not to depend on the value or quantity of clearances. That issue went to the root of the respondent's liability, and the omission amounted to a failure to consider a crucial contention, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on all contentions, including the applicability of Rule 57H(7). en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258398 The Tribunal's order was found materially infirm because it failed to examine whether Rule 57H(7) applied where the exemption notification was said not to depend on the value or quantity of clearances. That issue went to the root of the respondent's liability, and the omission amounted to a failure to consider a crucial contention, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on all contentions, including the applicability of Rule 57H(7). Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258398