Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim could be denied on grounds not forming part of the show cause notice or the Assistant Collector's order, and whether the appellants were entitled to refund under Notification No. 75/67-C.E. dated 20-5-1967.
Analysis: The show cause notice and the original order rejected the claim only for want of documentary proof of duty payment on the raw material. The appellate authority was therefore required to test the validity of that rejection on the same stated ground. It could not introduce fresh grounds such as failure to file D-3 intimations or partial time-bar, because an order must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it and not on new reasons subsequently supplied. On the merits of the stated ground, the appellants were not required to produce the proof insisted upon for claiming the exemption under the notification.
Conclusion: The additional grounds taken by the appellate authority were unsustainable, and the refund claim was held allowable to the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the refund was directed to follow with consequential relief according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory order must be upheld or set aside only on the grounds recorded in it, and an appellate authority cannot sustain rejection of a claim on fresh grounds not forming part of the original notice or order.