Remand compliance and evidentiary support in excise de novo orders: Tribunal set aside findings based on disputed figures and prior conclusions.

A de novo excise adjudication was found unsustainable because it did not follow the Tribunal's remand directions, which had confined reconsideration to whether cavity sheets were removed as upholstery sheets. The order instead relied substantially on the original findings, used disputed production and clearance figures despite record gaps, and failed to explain the basis of the annexures. It also repeated conclusions earlier set aside and applied a preponderance standard without cogent supporting evidence. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the de novo order confirming differential excise duty and equal penalty could be sustained when it did not comply with the Tribunal's remand directions and was not supported by adequate evidence or investigation.

Analysis: The earlier remand had required reconsideration of duty only on the limited question of cavity sheets removed as upholstery sheets, with specific reference to the observations in the earlier appellate order. The de novo adjudication, however, proceeded by substantially relying on the original adjudication findings, drew specific production and clearance figures despite the admitted difficulty in the availability of records, and did not satisfactorily explain how the figures in the annexures were arrived at. The order also continued to rely on conclusions earlier set aside, while invoking preponderance of probability in place of cogent proof. This showed that the de novo order was in disconnect with the remand directions and lacked adequate evidentiary support.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs as per law.

---