New factual ground on continuous factory closure cannot be raised first time on appeal for refund claims.

A plea that factory closure across different months could be aggregated for refund under a closure-based duty scheme was held inadmissible when raised for the first time before the Tribunal, because it was a mixed question of law and fact requiring factual inquiry. The principle applied was that a new ground not advanced before the original or first appellate authority cannot be entertained at the appellate stage where it depends on facts, and the rejection of the refund claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plea that the period of factory closure could be aggregated across different months, though not raised before the lower authorities, could be urged for the first time before the Tribunal for refund under the relevant closure-based duty scheme.

Issue (i): Whether a plea that the period of factory closure could be aggregated across different months, though not raised before the lower authorities, could be urged for the first time before the Tribunal for refund under the relevant closure-based duty scheme.

Analysis: The plea of continuous closure beyond fifteen days across months was not taken before the original authority or the first appellate authority. The issue was not a pure question of law but involved both legal and factual determination, and such a mixed question could not be introduced for the first time at the Tribunal stage. The Tribunal relied on the principle that a new ground not raised below cannot be entertained at the appellate stage when it requires factual inquiry.

Conclusion: The plea was not admissible for first-time consideration before the Tribunal and the rejection of the refund claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mixed question of law and fact that was not raised before the lower authorities cannot be entertained for the first time before the Tribunal.

---