Appellate memorandum on merits must be considered; a tribunal cannot ignore substantive grounds and decide the appeal on a mistaken premise.

Where the appellate memorandum raises substantive challenges on the merits, the Tribunal cannot dispose of the appeal on the mistaken assumption that the Revenue challenged only limitation. The memorandum here included grounds on the tariff note treating the process as manufacture, the effect of exemption notifications, and the extended period of limitation, but those merits were overlooked. The High Court treated that approach as unsustainable, held the Tribunal's finding to be untenable, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on all available grounds without being bound by its observations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Revenue had not challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits, despite the appeal memo containing substantive grounds on the merits of the demand.

Analysis: The appeal memo before the Tribunal contained several grounds assailing the order-in-appeal on merits, including the applicability of the tariff note treating specified processing as manufacture, the effect of the exemption notifications, and the plea supporting invocation of the extended period. On the record placed before the High Court, the Tribunal appears to have overlooked these grounds and proceeded on an erroneous premise that the Revenue had confined itself only to limitation. That approach rendered the Tribunal's disposal unsustainable, because the merits raised in the appeal required consideration and adjudication.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding was held to be unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on all available grounds, without being bound by the High Court's observations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate memorandum raises substantive grounds on merits, a tribunal cannot dispose of the appeal on the mistaken assumption that the challenge is confined to a different issue, and the matter must be decided on the grounds actually urged.

---