Appeal allowed, Tribunal order set aside for reconsideration. Decision emphasizes accurate representations and legal principles.

The appeal was allowed, and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order permitting mutilation of goods without payment of redemption fine was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on its merits and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was directed to decide expeditiously within three months. No specific order as to costs was given. The decision underscores the significance of accurate representations and the necessity for decisions to be grounded on correct legal principles rather than erroneous concessions.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order permitting mutilation of goods without payment of redemption fine based on a concession given by the representative appearing for the Respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 20th December 2005. The main issue raised in the appeal was whether the Tribunal should have allowed the mutilation of goods without the payment of redemption fine, considering a previous decision of the Apex Court. The appeal was admitted to consider this substantial question of law. The Tribunal's decision was primarily influenced by a concession made by the representative for the Respondent, which both parties later agreed was incorrect. It was acknowledged that no rules had been framed permitting the mutilation of stainless steel sheets, contrary to the concession made during the proceedings. As a result, the entire order was found to be based on this erroneous concession, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration without considering the incorrect concession.

The judgment emphasizes that the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration based on its own merits and following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the matter expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Both appeals were disposed of in accordance with this decision, with no specific order as to costs. The resolution of the case highlights the importance of accurate representations and the need for decisions to be based on correct legal grounds rather than erroneous concessions made during the proceedings.

---