Exemption entitlement and disputed factual verification led to remand for fresh consideration of the duty claim.

Exemption entitlement turned on the disputed timing and authenticity of a disposition report used to deny duty benefit. The appellant claimed the report was only a proforma adopted while framing the standard operating procedure and that the actual report was completed later, but this factual explanation had not been examined by the lower authority. Finding prima facie force in the explanation and noting the need for verification of additional material, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order denying exemption and confirming duty was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration in view of the appellant's explanation regarding the disposition report and standard operating procedure.

Analysis: The denial of benefit rested on the view that the disposition report bore a date and signature of 20.07.2005, which suggested that the form was prepared before the goods were purchased. The appellant explained that the document was only a proforma approved while framing the standard operating procedure and that the actual report was filled on 29.05.2007. The Tribunal found prima facie force in this explanation and noted that the supporting material had not been placed before the lower authorities. Since the additional factual material required reconsideration, the matter was considered fit for a fresh decision by the original authority.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a material factual explanation bearing on entitlement to exemption is raised for the first time before the Tribunal and requires factual verification, the proper course is to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

---