https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262897 Claim for benefit under Notification No. 64/88-Cus was not pursued, while the alternative claim under Notification No. 65/88-Cus had been raised but not examined by the adjudicating authority. Because liability under Notification No. 65/88-Cus had to be worked out separately, the matter required fresh consideration after deposit of the quantified amount and after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the issue of eligibility under Notification No. 65/88-Cus was remanded for reconsideration. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:51:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262897 Claim for benefit under Notification No. 64/88-Cus was not pursued, while the alternative claim under Notification No. 65/88-Cus had been raised but not examined by the adjudicating authority. Because liability under Notification No. 65/88-Cus had to be worked out separately, the matter required fresh consideration after deposit of the quantified amount and after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the issue of eligibility under Notification No. 65/88-Cus was remanded for reconsideration. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262897