https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358916 Notification No. 6/2002-CE was examined in relation to whether the exemption entry covered a scouring machine or only a combined milling and scouring machine. The record contained competing evidence: the appellant's expert stated that milling and scouring machines are distinct and not complementary, while technical literature relied on below supported the existence of combined machines in the woollen industry. Because the factual question whether such a combined machine exists went to the root of the exemption claim, the interpretation of the notification could not be finalised without resolving that issue. The matter was therefore remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on the evidence of both sides. en-us Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 May 2018 10:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358916 Notification No. 6/2002-CE was examined in relation to whether the exemption entry covered a scouring machine or only a combined milling and scouring machine. The record contained competing evidence: the appellant's expert stated that milling and scouring machines are distinct and not complementary, while technical literature relied on below supported the existence of combined machines in the woollen industry. Because the factual question whether such a combined machine exists went to the root of the exemption claim, the interpretation of the notification could not be finalised without resolving that issue. The matter was therefore remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on the evidence of both sides. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358916