https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84424 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. en-us Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:19:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84424 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 22 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84424