Eligibility certificate appeals require reasoned findings on each ground, and delayed applications cannot be rejected solely for late filing where balance-period relief applies.

An appellate authority considering rejection of an eligibility certificate must address each ground raised in the appeal and record specific findings; a summary disposal without dealing with the individual objections shows non-application of mind. Delay in filing the application beyond six months from the commencement of the facility period did not, by itself, justify outright rejection, because Section 4-A(5)(b) preserves entitlement for the balance of the notified period from the date of application. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision on all grounds raised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority was required to consider each ground raised against rejection of the application for an eligibility certificate and record specific findings; (ii) whether an application for eligibility certificate made after six months from the commencement of the period of facility could be rejected on that ground alone.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority was required to consider each ground raised against rejection of the application for an eligibility certificate and record specific findings.

Analysis: The rejection order was founded on multiple grounds, and the memo of appeal had separately assailed each of them. The appellate authority was expected to apply its mind to the factual objections and return findings on the contentions raised, instead of disposing of the appeal in a summary manner without dealing with the individual grounds.

Conclusion: The appeal could not be dismissed without a proper consideration of each ground, and the order suffered from non-application of mind.

Issue (ii): Whether an application for eligibility certificate made after six months from the commencement of the period of facility could be rejected on that ground alone.

Analysis: Section 4-A(5)(b) contemplates that where the manufacturer applies after the date specified in clause (a), the benefit is not wholly unavailable; instead, the entitlement continues for the remainder of the notified period, computed from the date of application. Accordingly, delay in filing did not, by itself, justify outright rejection of the request for grant of eligibility certificate.

Conclusion: The application was not liable to be rejected solely because it was filed after six months.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on all grounds raised in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority must adjudicate the grounds specifically raised before it and cannot sustain rejection of eligibility benefits merely on delay where the governing provision allows limited entitlement for the balance period.

---