Pre-deposit waiver and remand followed conflicting views on retrospective credit amendment and absence of merits findings.

A strong prima facie case was found where the lower appellate authority gave conflicting views on whether the amendment to Rule 57D(2) was clarificatory and retrospective, while also failing to decide the substantive eligibility to credit. In that situation, the text states that waiver of pre-deposit was warranted and the matter required fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee. The dispute was therefore remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in accordance with law and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and remand of the matter for fresh decision when the lower appellate authority had taken conflicting views on the retrospective nature of the amendment to Rule 57D(2) and had not recorded findings on the merits of credit eligibility.

Analysis: A strong prima facie case existed because in the same proceedings the earlier appellate order had treated the amendment to Rule 57D(2) as clarificatory and retrospective, whereas the later order took the opposite view and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction. As the lower appellate authority had not returned findings on the substantive question of eligibility to credit, the controversy required fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---