https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790166 Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer had already been treated in prior Tribunal decisions as classifiable under CTH 70051090 and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore remitted the classification and exemption dispute for de novo consideration by the original authority. As the remand was neither shown to be patently illegal nor perverse, and the nature of the goods still required factual adjudication, the appellate forum declined to interfere. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the direction for fresh decision on merits was maintained. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:48:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790166 Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer had already been treated in prior Tribunal decisions as classifiable under CTH 70051090 and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore remitted the classification and exemption dispute for de novo consideration by the original authority. As the remand was neither shown to be patently illegal nor perverse, and the nature of the goods still required factual adjudication, the appellate forum declined to interfere. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the direction for fresh decision on merits was maintained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790166