Speaking order requirement leads to remand where applicability of Rule 57CC was not properly reasoned by the appellate authority.

Rule 57CC was examined in relation to spent sulphuric acid cleared under Chapter X procedure, but the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to give a reasoned finding on that applicability. The appellate order merely rejected the adjudicating authority's view and accepted the assessee's submissions and cited precedents without explaining why the original findings were wrong or how the authorities applied to the facts. Because the order lacked reasons and did not properly address the substantive issue, it could not be sustained as a speaking order. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a sustainable order on the applicability of Rule 57CC to Spent Sulphuric Acid cleared under Chapter X Procedure, and whether the matter required remand for a speaking order.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the adequacy of the lower appellate order. The order under challenge was only a brief, non-reasoned endorsement that the adjudicating authority's findings were incorrect and that the assessee's submissions and cited case law were applicable mutatis mutandis. It did not explain why the adjudicating authority's findings were unsound or how the cited precedents applied to the facts. The issue whether Rule 57CC applied to the goods was therefore not properly addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained as it was not a speaking order, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh on merits after hearing the assessee.

---