Statutory appellate remedy and independent judicial reasoning governed challenge to excise duty demand and exemption dispute.

The High Court could not sustain the special civil applications merely by following an earlier Division Bench ruling without recording independent reasons on the issue before it. The dispute concerned an SSI unit's claim to excise exemption, while the Revenue sought differential duty on the basis that the loan licencees were not entitled to the benefit. Because the adjudication order confirming duty was appealable, the statutory appeal was the proper remedy for testing the demand on merits. The High Court's order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the respondent was granted time to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Collector (Appeals), to be heard on merits if filed within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could sustain an order allowing the special civil applications without recording its own reasons, and whether the respondent should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy against the adjudication order demanding differential duty.

Analysis: The respondent, an SSI unit, claimed exemption under the relevant excise notification, while the Revenue sought recovery of differential duty on the footing that the loan licencees were not entitled to the benefit. The High Court allowed the applications by following an earlier Division Bench decision, but did not give any independent reasons on the question actually arising before it. As the issue in the earlier case was different, the High Court's disposal lacked its own reasoning. The adjudication order confirming demand was appealable, making the statutory appeal the proper course for examining the dispute on merits.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was unsustainable and was set aside. The respondent was granted time to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Collector (Appeals), and any appeal filed within time was to be entertained and decided on merits in accordance with law.

---