Cum-duty valuation dispute limited by grounds of appeal; unraised factual challenge was not examined

The dispute concerned cum-duty valuation, but the Court confined itself to the only ground raised in appeal: that the earlier valuation decision was under review. It noted that the appellate authority had already treated the sale price as cum-duty price and reduced the assessable value, while the department had not raised the separate factual contention that cum-duty treatment was inapplicable on the facts. As that contention was outside the grounds of appeal, the Court declined to examine the factual merits and left the dismissal of the department's appeal undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could succeed on the valuation dispute relating to cum-duty price when the only ground raised before the appellate forums was the pendency of review against an earlier decision.

Analysis: The challenge before the Court was confined to the contention that the earlier decision on cum-duty valuation was under reconsideration. The Court noted that the appellate authority had already treated the sale price as cum-duty price and reduced the assessable value accordingly. It further noted that the department's appeals before the Tribunal and the Court did not raise the additional factual contention that the doctrine of cum-duty price was inapplicable on the facts. Since that contention did not form part of the grounds of appeal, the Court declined to examine the factual merits of the valuation dispute.

Conclusion: The Court refused to entertain the unraised factual contention and upheld the dismissal of the department's appeal.

---