Fresh plea requiring factual verification cannot be raised on appeal where earlier admission already exists.

A fresh plea for benefit under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was rejected at the appellate stage because its acceptance would have required fresh factual inquiry into compliance with Chapter X procedure from 1986 onwards. The appellant had already admitted reversal of Modvat credit before the original authority, had not raised the notification plea there, and had shown no bona fide reason for the omission. On those facts, the majority held that remand was unwarranted and that the original order was sustainable. The concurring opinion likewise found that a plea requiring factual verification need not be remanded, and the appeal was dismissed in favour of Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to have the matter remanded for consideration of its plea for benefit under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. despite non-compliance with Chapter X procedure and despite the plea not having been raised before the original authority.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to have the matter remanded for consideration of its plea for benefit under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. despite non-compliance with Chapter X procedure and despite the plea not having been raised before the original authority.

Analysis: The majority held that the new plea could not be entertained because its acceptance would require investigation into facts concerning compliance with Chapter X procedure from 1986 onwards. It was noted that the appellant had already admitted reversal of Modvat credit before the original authority, had not sought personal hearing there, and had not shown bona fide reasons for omitting the plea earlier. The view that procedural requirements could be relaxed was not accepted on the facts, and the original order was held to be sustainable.

Conclusion: The plea for remand was rejected and the appeal was dismissed, against the assessee and in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The majority held that a fresh factual plea requiring investigation could not be allowed at the appellate stage in the circumstances of the case, and the order of the original authority stood affirmed.

Concurring Opinion: T.P. Nambiar, Member (J), agreed with the Technical Member that the appellant could not be permitted to urge a fresh plea requiring factual verification and that the appeal deserved dismissal. He held that the matter need not be remanded.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea first raised in appeal, where its acceptance depends on fresh factual investigation and the party had already made an admission before the original authority, need not be entertained by way of remand.

---