Fresh adjudication required where earlier precedents and Revenue's credit objection were not properly examined.

The Tribunal held that an order cannot be sustained where it rests on earlier decisions not before the original adjudicating authority and where no finding has been recorded on the Revenue's specific objection to credit on duty-paid inputs used in the cleared goods. As both sides agreed that these matters required fresh examination, the existing order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after recording findings on all issues and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order required to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in view of the reliance on earlier decisions and the absence of findings on the Revenue's objection to credit on inputs used in the cleared goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier decisions cited by the assessee were not available before the Commissioner when the order was passed. It also noted that no finding had been recorded on the Revenue's specific objection regarding allowance of credit on duty-paid materials used in the manufacture of the impugned goods, and that both sides agreed these issues should be examined afresh. In these circumstances, the existing order could not be sustained without a fresh consideration of the factual and legal questions raised.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision after recording findings on all issues and after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides.

---