Non-speaking tribunal orders lacking reasons on pleaded grounds are unsustainable and may be remitted for fresh hearing.

An appellate or tribunal order must deal with the grounds actually raised and record reasons on the points for decision; if it proceeds on a fresh basis without hearing the affected party, it is unsustainable. The Madras HC held that the non-speaking CESTAT order, which ignored the Department's pleaded grounds and ventured into a new issue without adequate hearing, could not stand. It set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after notice and hearing to both parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order, being non-speaking and not addressing the grounds raised in appeal, could be sustained and whether the matter had to be remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

Analysis: The order under challenge did not deal with the Department's pleaded grounds and instead proceeded on a new issue. In appellate adjudication, reasons must be recorded on the points arising for decision, and a party affected by a fresh ground must be given an opportunity of hearing under Rule 10 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Since the impugned order lacked such discussion and proceeded without adequate consideration of the appeal grounds, it could not be sustained. The Court also approved remand for fresh adjudication on merits, with both sides to be heard.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the controversy was restored to the Tribunal for a fresh merits determination.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate or tribunal order that does not give reasons on the grounds raised and introduces a fresh basis without hearing the affected party is unsustainable and may be set aside with remand for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing.

---