2000 (11) TMI 145 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the claim based on non-pleading of benefit under Notification No. 175/86.
2. Interpretation of the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider issues not specifically raised before the original authority.
3. Application of legal principles regarding entitlement to benefits under fiscal statutes despite non-specific claims.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a manufacturing entity, sought relief through a Writ Petition challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order rejecting their claim due to non-pleading of benefit under Notification No. 175/86. The petitioner argued that although the specific aspect was not raised before the original authority, it was included in the grounds of appeal. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the contention that the Appellate Authority can consider issues not explicitly pleaded, especially when the materials are available on record.

The Department contended that the petitioner's lack of vigilance and delayed request for relief should result in the dismissal of the claim. However, the Court disagreed with this reasoning and emphasized that entitlement to benefits under a notification should be granted even if not explicitly claimed, citing legal provisions and Supreme Court decisions. The Court highlighted the Tribunal's competence to grant relief based on other grounds not raised before, if justified.

Based on the legal principles and precedents cited, the Court found the Appellate Tribunal's order unsustainable. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration on merits within a specified timeframe. The parties were granted the opportunity to present additional evidence or arguments. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs imposed.