Material allegations must be examined before appellate relief; failure to consider fake invoice and non-accountal issues led to remand.

An appellate order cannot be sustained where it overlooks a material allegation forming the foundation of the dispute. The record showed that the show cause notice and order-in-original alleged a fake invoice and non-accountal of goods in Central Excise records, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine those issues and proceeded only on the basis of non-debit of duty in PLA. Because the factual controversy was not properly considered, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with liberty to the respondent to place its defence before the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could be sustained when the alleged fake invoice and non-accountal of goods in Central Excise records were not considered, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The record showed that the show cause notice and the order-in-original alleged that invoice No. 128 was fake and that the goods covered by it were not accounted for in Central Excise records. Those material aspects were not dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals), who proceeded on the footing that all three invoices were regular invoices and that the only lapse was non-debit of duty in PLA. Since the appeal involved an important factual controversy that had not been examined, the appellate order could not stand as it was.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, with liberty to the respondent to place its defence before the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded by remand, and the cross objection was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority fails to consider a material allegation forming the foundation of the dispute, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after proper consideration of the evidence.

---