Modvat credit entitlement requires factual verification; untested claims raised on appeal warranted remand for fresh adjudication.

Modvat credit was disputed because the GP 1 lacked the Central Excise seal and the Bill of Entry was not endorsed in favour of the claimants. The claimants argued that these defects were procedural, later rectified, and supported by certificates and endorsements, but the appellate forum did not examine those factual assertions before rejecting the appeal as unsubstantiated. Where entitlement depends on material facts raised for the first time at appellate stage and those facts cannot be verified there, the proper course is remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh findings. The appellate dismissal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication with a reasonable hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal without examining the appellants' factual submissions relating to availability of Modvat credit on the strength of the GP 1 and Bill of Entry, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute concerned denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the GP 1 did not bear the Central Excise seal and the Bill of Entry was not endorsed in favour of the appellants. The appellants asserted that the missing seal was only a procedural lapse subsequently rectified and that supporting certificates and endorsements were available, while the respondent questioned the factual basis of those assertions. The appellate authority did not examine these factual claims and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the submissions were unsubstantiated, though such verification could not be undertaken at that stage. Where material facts bearing on entitlement are raised for the first time before the appellate forum and cannot be verified there, the proper course is to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh findings.

Conclusion: The dismissal by the appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---