https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53895 An exemption claim under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. had to be examined on the alternative entry relied upon, because the appellate authority did not record any finding on Serial No. 42 of Part B covering disposable cannulae and similar articles. The claim was also supported by stated DGHS clarifications, and an exemption plea could be raised for the first time before the appellate authority or in de novo proceedings. As that alternative ground had not been adjudicated, the order could not stand without fresh consideration on merits, and the matter was remanded for de novo examination in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:21:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53895 An exemption claim under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. had to be examined on the alternative entry relied upon, because the appellate authority did not record any finding on Serial No. 42 of Part B covering disposable cannulae and similar articles. The claim was also supported by stated DGHS clarifications, and an exemption plea could be raised for the first time before the appellate authority or in de novo proceedings. As that alternative ground had not been adjudicated, the order could not stand without fresh consideration on merits, and the matter was remanded for de novo examination in accordance with law. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53895