Appellate grounds beyond the original controversy cannot be raised later, including new duty and exemption claims on a vessel.

Appellate contentions on the rate and quantum of duty on a vessel, and on exemption notifications, could not be raised where those matters were not included in the show cause notice, the original adjudication, or the cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute before the original authority concerned only classification and duty liability of moveable gears, stores and bunkers, and the vessel's assessment had already attained finality. Because appellate proceedings cannot extend beyond the controversy actually put in issue, the new pleas were not entertainable and the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly declined to consider them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could raise, in the appeal before the Tribunal, contentions relating to the rate and quantum of duty on the vessel and the benefit of exemption notifications when those matters were not part of the show cause notice, the adjudication, or the cross appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The disputed proceeding before the original authority concerned only the classification and duty liability of moveable gears, stores and bunkers. The assessee's cross objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not raise any challenge to the rate or quantum of assessment of the vessel, nor did it specifically invoke the exemption notifications now relied upon. Since the assessment of the vessel had already attained finality long before the later appellate stage, and the appellate proceedings could not travel beyond the subject matter actually put in issue, the new plea could not be entertained. Authorities permitting additional grounds at a later stage were held inapplicable because they concerned claims arising from the same subject matter, which was not the position here.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to raise the new contentions in the appeal, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was in declining to consider them.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the attempted challenge lay outside the controversy actually initiated and adjudicated in the proceedings.

---