Actual manufacturer finding required before duty and penalty can be confirmed; non-compliance with remand directions led to fresh adjudication.

Duty and penalty for clearance of excisable goods must be fastened only on the person conclusively found to be the actual manufacturer; a joint and several confirmation without a clear finding on that identity is contrary to law and cannot stand. Where de novo adjudication fails to comply with binding remand directions, the proper course is fresh adjudication by the authority below in accordance with those directions. The composite confirmation was set aside and the matter was remanded again for a fresh decision after identifying the actual manufacturer and addressing the issues earlier directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether confirmation of duty demand and penalties jointly and severally against the notices was sustainable without a clear finding on the actual manufacturer; (ii) whether the de novo adjudication complied with the earlier remand directions and, if not, the proper course to be adopted.

Issue (i): Whether confirmation of duty demand and penalties jointly and severally against the notices was sustainable without a clear finding on the actual manufacturer.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed jointly and severally against more than one entity, but the liability to duty and penalty had to attach to the person found to be the actual manufacturer of the cigarettes. In the absence of clear findings identifying the actual manufacturer, such a composite confirmation was held to be contrary to law. The need for a definite finding on the entity actually manufacturing and clearing the goods was emphasised for both duty confirmation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion: The joint and several confirmation was unsustainable and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the de novo adjudication complied with the earlier remand directions and, if not, the proper course to be adopted.

Analysis: The matter had earlier been remanded with specific directions, but the subsequent adjudication did not follow those instructions. The adjudicating authority was required to act strictly in accordance with the earlier remand orders and to decide the matter afresh after addressing the issues identified by the Tribunal. As the de novo proceedings again suffered from non-compliance with the earlier directions, further adjudication by the Tribunal was not warranted and a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority was necessary.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded again for fresh adjudication in accordance with the earlier and present directions.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the defective composite confirmation and required the adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after identifying the actual manufacturer and complying with the earlier remand instructions.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty and penalty for clearance of excisable goods must be fastened only on the person conclusively found to be the actual manufacturer, and failure to comply with binding remand directions justifies a fresh remand for de novo adjudication.

---