https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96175 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. en-us Tue, 08 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:37:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96175 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96175