Substantive exemption cannot be denied for procedural lapses when reliable material supports refund entitlement and merits need fresh review.

Refund entitlement for aviation fuel supplied to foreign-bound flights could not be denied merely for procedural non-compliance where reliable material showed that the substantive conditions of the exemption were met. The analysis stressed that prescribed documentation defects do not defeat a claim if the underlying statutory or notification-based requirements are otherwise established. Because the dispute was heavily factual and the existing record required fuller appraisal, the matter was remitted to the revisional authority for fresh consideration on merits, with directions to examine the evidence and decide the refund claim afresh.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be defeated for alleged procedural non-compliance if the assessee could establish fulfilment of the substantive conditions of the exemption. (ii) Whether the matter required reconsideration by the revisional authority on the available material.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be defeated for alleged procedural non-compliance if the assessee could establish fulfilment of the substantive conditions of the exemption.

Analysis: The claim turned on whether the duty-paid aviation fuel had in fact been supplied for foreign-bound flights so as to attract the exemption. The record indicated that there was material capable of linking the supply to such flights, and the governing notification itself contemplated a special procedure for stores consumed on board aircraft on foreign run. The decision emphasised that, where the substantive entitlement is otherwise established on reliable material, the claim should not fail merely because the prescribed documents were not produced in the original form or there was some procedural infraction.

Conclusion: The claim could not be rejected solely on procedural grounds if the substantive requirements were established.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required reconsideration by the revisional authority on the available material.

Analysis: The controversy involved appreciation of bulky factual material and the Court declined to record a final factual finding itself. Instead, it held that the petitioner's case should be re-examined by the revisional authority, which would consider the evidence and decide whether the refund claim was supported on merits. The revisional authority was directed to assess the claim afresh in light of the observations made and the submissions of both sides.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the revisional authority for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a limited success inasmuch as the adverse revisional order was set aside and the refund dispute was sent back for fresh consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where substantive entitlement to exemption or refund is shown on reliable material, a claim should not be defeated merely for procedural lapses, and a fact-intensive dispute may be remitted for fresh determination rather than finally decided without full factual examination.

---