Jurisdictional objection to appeal competence requires a speaking order, and unanswered issues justify remand for fresh adjudication.

Competence of an appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged before the appellate authority, but no finding was recorded on that jurisdictional objection. Where a material issue raised by a party remains unanswered, the proper course is reconsideration by remand rather than final determination on merits. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh adjudication, with a direction to pass a speaking order recording findings on the issues raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was competent in view of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the matter should be remanded because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not recorded findings on that issue.

Analysis: The objection regarding the competence of the Deputy Commissioner to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). As no finding was recorded on that issue, the matter required reconsideration on the basis of the cited legal position and the statutory provision.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication and for a speaking order recording findings on the issues raised.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of securing a remand for reconsideration of the unanswered jurisdictional issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a material issue raised before the appellate authority is left unanswered, the proper course is remand for fresh adjudication with recorded findings.

---