Fresh hearing required where appellate order follows an inordinate delay and lacks clear consideration of submissions.

An appellate order passed long after the hearing, without granting a fresh opportunity to the parties and without showing clear consideration of their submissions, is vulnerable to being set aside. The record indicated confusion on the refund issue and no evident basis for treating the written submissions as properly examined, especially where the earlier finding recognised that part of the refund was admissible because duty had been paid under protest. The order was therefore quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing and de novo decision-making.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order could be sustained when it was passed long after the hearing, without granting a fresh opportunity of hearing and without showing proper consideration of the parties' submissions.

Analysis: The order under challenge recorded the hearing on one date and the decision almost two and a half years later. The record suggested that the Tribunal had mixed up the facts and proceeded on an assumption contrary to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that part of the refund was admissible because duty had been paid under protest. The order also did not disclose the basis of the alleged consideration of the respondent's written submissions, which indicated that the matter had not been decided on a proper and reasoned appreciation of the record. In these circumstances, the decision could not stand without a fresh hearing.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh after hearing both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order passed after an inordinate gap from the hearing, without affording a fresh hearing and without a clear consideration of the record and submissions, is liable to be quashed and remanded for de novo decision-making.

---