Maintainability of appeal against refund rejection order: dismissal set aside and matter remitted for fresh merits review.

The appeal was maintainable because the record disclosed a substantive refund rejection order, not merely an endorsement. The First Appellate Authority proceeded on the premise that no appealable decision existed, so its dismissal for want of maintainability could not stand. As no finding was recorded on the merits of the refund claim, the matter required fresh examination in accordance with law. The appellate order was set aside and the dispute was remitted for reconsideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable against the endorsement despite the existence of a refund rejection order, and whether the matter required remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The refund rejection record showed that the original authority had passed a substantive refund rejection order, supported by the accompanying endorsement and system screenshot. The appellate authority, however, proceeded on the mistaken premise that the appeal was only against an endorsement and not against an appealable decision or order. Since the material on record disclosed a proper refund rejection order, the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was unsustainable. The appellate authority also did not record any finding on the merits of the refund claim, and the matter required examination afresh in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The appeal against the rejection action was maintainable, the appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on merits.

---