De novo adjudication on credit utilization dispute ordered after contradictory findings and unresolved limitation plea

Material contradictions in the lower authorities' findings on production and consideration of credit registers, together with an incorrect view of the period for which records were submitted, justified setting aside the impugned orders. The first appellate authority failed to independently examine these inconsistencies and merely affirmed the original findings. The plea based on the Board circular was raised only before the Tribunal, so it had not been considered below. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication on all issues, including limitation, after granting the appellant a proper opportunity to place documents and contentions on record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of excess credit utilization and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, including consideration of the limitation plea and the effect of the cited circular.

Analysis: The record disclosed material contradictions in the findings of the lower authorities regarding production and consideration of the credit registers and related records. The adjudicating authority also proceeded on an incorrect appreciation of the period for which records had been submitted. The first appellate authority did not independently examine these inconsistencies and merely reiterated the findings below. Since the plea based on the Board circular was raised for the first time before the Tribunal, the lower authorities had no occasion to consider its bearing on the dispute. In these circumstances, the matter required fresh adjudication after giving the appellant a proper opportunity to place the relevant documents and contentions on record.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on all issues, including limitation, after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

---