Appealability of refund sanction orders and remand for a non-speaking decision: merits must be reconsidered by the original authority.

A refund sanction order under the Central Excise Act was treated as an appealable order, so the Revenue's appeal was maintainable. Where the original refund order was non-speaking and the appellate authority had not examined the refund claim on merits, it could not finally decide the controversy itself. The proper course was to sustain the setting aside of the deficient order and remit the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication with reasons. The dispute was therefore sent back for reconsideration on merits by the Assistant Collector.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's appeal against the refund order was maintainable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether, after setting aside the refund order for want of reasons, the appellate authority ought to have decided the matter on merits or remanded it for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's appeal against the refund order was maintainable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The refund sanctioning order was an appealable order within the meaning of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The challenge that such an order could not be appealed against was not accepted.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, after setting aside the refund order for want of reasons, the appellate authority ought to have decided the matter on merits or remanded it for fresh consideration.

Analysis: Since the original refund order contained no reasons and the appellate authority had not examined the merits of the refund claim, it could not finally allow the Revenue's appeal on merits. The proper course was to remit the matter to the original authority for reconsideration and a reasoned decision.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.

Final Conclusion: The order setting aside the refund sanction was sustained, but the dispute was sent back to the original authority to decide the refund claim afresh on merits with reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority may uphold the setting aside of a non-speaking order, but where the merits have not been examined, it should remand the matter for fresh adjudication rather than finally dispose of the controversy on merits.

---