Rebate denial based on laboratory report failed where the sample-source dispute was not examined before rejecting the claim.

Denial of rebate based on a Chemicals Examiner's report could not be sustained where the appellants had consistently contended that the sample was drawn from raw rice bran oil and not from the processed oil used in manufacture. That material factual plea had to be examined before rejecting the rebate claim, because the laboratory report alone could not e admissibility without resolving the sampling dispute. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of the rebate entitlement after addressing the appellants' factual contention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of rebate under the relevant notification on the basis of the Chemicals Examiner's report was sustainable when the appellants contended that the sample had been drawn from raw rice bran oil and not from the processed oil used in manufacture.

Analysis: The factual plea that the sample related to raw rice bran oil was raised from the outset, but the authorities below did not deal with it while deciding admissibility of the rebate. Since the denial of benefit rested on a report that had to be tested against this factual contention, the finding on inadmissibility could not be sustained without examining that plea.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for consideration of the appellants' factual plea and fresh on admissibility of rebate.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of remand for reconsideration of the rebate claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual contention material to the denial of rebate must be examined by the adjudicating authority before sustaining the denial on the basis of laboratory evidence.

---