Cum-duty valuation dispute failed where the review-based challenge and unraised factual contention were both rejected.

Cum-duty valuation was affirmed for assessing the mobile cranes, and the departmental challenge failed because the appeal was confined to the argument that the earlier Supreme Court ruling was under review; that review had already been dismissed, and the related circular had been withdrawn. The Court also refused to consider a new factual contention that the earlier ruling was inapplicable, since that point had not been raised before the Tribunal or in the civil appeal. On the grounds actually urged, the challenge had no merit and the dismissal was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department's appeal had merit in challenging the appellate authority's adoption of cum-duty price for computing the assessable value of the mobile cranes, and whether the Court should examine the factual contention not raised in the appeal memorandum.

Analysis: The appeal was confined to the ground that the earlier Supreme Court decision on cum-duty valuation was under reconsideration in review. That review had already been dismissed, and the administrative circular issued on the basis of the pending review had also been withdrawn. The Court further declined to examine a fresh factual contention that the earlier decision was inapplicable on the facts, because that point was not raised in the departmental appeal before the Tribunal or in the civil appeal before the Court. On the record and the grounds actually urged, no merit remained in the challenge.

Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed, and the dismissal of the appeal was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

---