Appellate pleadings cannot be recast to introduce a new cartons argument and defeat exemption at a late stage.

The appellate authority could not permit the Department to abandon its pleaded case that the goods were boxes and printed boxes and introduce a new, inconsistent contention that they were cartons to deny notification exemption. The matter had been argued before the lower authorities on the basis that the product was a box, and the proposed cartons argument was not part of the appeal as framed. Allowing that plea at the appellate stage would have amounted to raising an entirely new case rather than supplementing the existing grounds, so it was not open for decision in that proceeding. The Department's request to raise the fresh plea was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department could be permitted at the appellate stage to abandon the pleaded case that the goods were boxes and raise a new and inconsistent case that they were cartons so as to deny exemption under the notification.

Analysis: The appeal as filed proceeded throughout on the footing that the product was a box and a printed box. The lower authorities had also dealt with the matter on that basis. Permitting a fresh plea that the goods were cartons would amount to allowing a wholly new and inconsistent case to be introduced at a late stage, rather than adding a further ground in support of the existing appeal. Since the question whether the goods were cartons was not part of the appeal as framed, it was held not to be open for decision in that proceeding.

Conclusion: The Department was not entitled to raise the new plea that the goods were cartons, and the request to do so was rejected.

---