1986 (10) TMI 235 - AT - Customs

Remand - Appellate or higher Judicial authority may remand a case with his observations and directions

Summary

Issues:
Main issue: Whether the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. is the manufacturer of excisable goods and liable under Central Excise Laws.

Analysis:
1. The department, represented by S.D.R., contends that the main issue in all cases is whether the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. is liable under Central Excise Laws for manufacturing excisable goods and the subsequent duty and penalties for non-compliance.
2. The department requests a consolidated hearing for all cases arising from order-in-appeal Nos. 8 to 13/OR/84 dated 28-1-84. Both parties agree to this approach.
3. The Superintendent imposed penalties of less than Rs. 1000 in all cases, but due to the significant issues and ongoing revenue impact, the cases are deemed suitable for appeal.
4. The department argues that the Collector (Appeals) erred in remanding the cases for de novo adjudication by the Superintendent without citing any illegality or denial of natural justice.
5. The Collector (Appeals) is criticized for reopening the issue of the manufacturer's identity, which had been settled by a previous order of the Superintendent, making the remand unjustified.
6. The contention that the products of saw mills are not manufactured goods is disputed, as the conversion of logs into products constitutes manufacturing, warranting compliance with excise laws.
7. The Respondent argues that the Collector (Appeals) had the authority to remand the cases for further consideration by the Superintendent, emphasizing the need to consider previous orders and guidelines.
8. The Collector (Appeals) is faulted for not having all relevant facts before rendering the order, highlighting gaps in information that could impact the decision.
9. The failure to address excisability issues and neglecting relevant orders and notifications further weakens the Collector (Appeals) decision, leading to a request for overturning the order.
10. The judgment criticizes the lack of coherence in the Collector (Appeals) order, noting inconsistencies in determining the manufacturer and excisability of products, leading to a vague and improper decision.
11. Despite the Collector (Appeals) being allowed to provide directions to the Superintendent, the judgment concludes that crucial aspects of the case were not adequately addressed, warranting a remand for a fresh consideration of all cases.