Advance ruling on wrong facts set aside and remanded for fresh decision on the correct factual basis.

Where an advance ruling rests on a factual premise later shown to be incorrect, it cannot be sustained if the appeal depends on materially different facts not examined by the original authority. The appellate authority noted that the dispute over research and development services turned on whether the relevant goods were supplied by a foreign customer or manufactured in India, and the new factual basis had not been considered earlier. A fresh determination by the original authority was therefore required on the correct facts after hearing the appellant again, and the ruling was set aside and remanded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling required to be set aside and the matter remanded when the appeal was founded on a materially different factual basis from the facts presented before the Authority for Advance Ruling.

Analysis: The appellant before the appellate authority asserted that the facts placed before the original authority were incorrect and that the goods on which the research and development services were performed were not supplied by the foreign customer but were manufactured in India. The authority noted that the advance ruling had been rendered on a different factual premise, and that the appellant was now seeking a decision on a new set of facts not examined by the original authority. In these circumstances, the ruling based on the earlier factual foundation could not be sustained, and a fresh decision by the original authority was necessary after hearing the appellant on the correct facts.

Conclusion: The advance ruling was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh decision after hearing the appellant afresh.

---