Non-speaking appellate orders and drawback computation of post-manufacturing services require fresh consideration on remand.

An appellate order must address material submissions and documents relied on by the party; if it omits findings on those points, it is a non-speaking order and cannot stand. The commentary also notes that services received after manufacture are excluded from drawback computation, and that claims rejected for want of supporting evidence require fresh examination of invoices, the written agreement, proof of non-availment of Cenvat credit and other relevant documents. On that basis, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant and considering the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was a non-speaking order for want of findings on the material submissions and documents, warranting remand. (ii) Whether services received after manufacture were to be excluded while computing drawback and whether the appellant should be directed to produce the requisite supporting documents on remand.

Issue (i): Whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was a non-speaking order for want of findings on the material submissions and documents, warranting remand.

Analysis: The appellate order was found to deal only with the drawback objection and to omit any finding on the appellant's specific submissions regarding the written agreement, documentary evidence and other grounds. An order which ignores material contentions and does not record findings on the issues raised cannot be treated as a reasoned adjudication.

Conclusion: The order was held to be non-speaking and unsustainable, justifying remand.

Issue (ii): Whether services received after manufacture were to be excluded while computing drawback and whether the appellant should be directed to produce the requisite supporting documents on remand.

Analysis: It was noted that the settled position excludes post-manufacturing services from the drawback computation. Since the refund claims had also been rejected for want of proper documentation, the matter required fresh consideration by the appellate authority after examining the invoices, written agreement, proof of non-availment of Cenvat credit and other material required under the relevant notification and rules.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh decision after consideration of the appellant's documents and submissions.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing and production of supporting documents.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order that omits findings on material submissions and relevant documents is a non-speaking order and warrants remand for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.

---