Commissioner's analysis faulted, remand for thorough review of services availed and statutory compliance. Fair hearing granted.

The judgment criticizes the Commissioner (Appeals) for insufficiently analyzing the services availed by the appellants, failing to follow statutory mandates, and not adhering to appellate order guidelines. It directs a re-adjudication, emphasizing a thorough examination of the controversy, application of relevant laws, and the necessity of a detailed and reasoned order. The appellant is granted a fair hearing during the process, with the appeal remanded for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Lack of proper analysis by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the services availed by the appellants.
2. Failure to follow the statutory mandate under section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Guidelines issued by the Apex Court on writing appellate orders.
4. Direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication and passing a reasoned order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights the concern over the Commissioner (Appeals) not adequately examining the controversy surrounding the services availed by the appellants. The order criticizes the lack of detailed analysis and merely mentions the services without proper scrutiny, indicating a failure to fulfill the legal requirement of thorough examination.

2. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of following the statutory mandate under section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It points out that the controversy should be decided based on evidence and the application of relevant laws, which was not done in this case. The failure to adhere to this statutory requirement is highlighted as a significant issue.

3. The judgment references guidelines provided by the Apex Court on writing appellate orders, emphasizing the importance of clarity, relevance, and coherence in judicial decisions. The guidelines stress the need for a well-structured and informative order that clearly presents the legal reasoning and factual analysis, ensuring readability and interest for the reader.

4. In response to the identified issues, the judgment directs the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the case, thoroughly examining each item under controversy and applying the law to the evidence presented. The appellant is granted a fair opportunity of hearing during the re-adjudication process, with the expectation of a reasoned and detailed order addressing each item of the CENVAT credit claimed. Ultimately, the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings.

---