Speaking order requirement failed where material grounds were unanswered, leading to remand for fresh findings on the importer's objections.

An appellate order must address the material grounds raised by the importer and give reasons on each contested issue to qualify as a speaking order. Here, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal with the claim that the goods were not "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the applicability of standards under that Act, or the explanation for the alleged test failure. Because these unanswered matters were material and factual, the order could not stand and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh findings on all grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order was a speaking order and whether the matter required remand for findings on the grounds raised before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The order under challenge did not deal with the grounds urged by the importer, including the contention that the goods were not "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the applicability of standards under that Act, and the explanation for the alleged test failure. Since these issues were not addressed, the order lacked reasons on material questions and could not be sustained as a speaking order. As the unanswered grounds were factual in nature, the Tribunal declined to decide them independently.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh findings on all grounds raised.

---