Contradictory findings on clandestine removal and duty liability led to remand for fresh adjudication.

An order recording evidence of clandestine production and clearance, yet refusing to confirm duty on the ground that the precise quantum could not be sustained, was held internally inconsistent and legally unsustainable. The tribunal found that such contradictory findings on removal and duty liability could not stand where the evidence required proper appreciation and quantification. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by the original authority after giving the respondent an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order, which accepted evidence of clandestine production and clearance but declined to confirm the duty demand and imposed only penalty, was legally sustainable and required to be set aside and remanded for reconsideration.

Analysis: The order recorded material evidence indicating unaccounted production and removal of tread rubber, yet it simultaneously held that the precise quantum could not be legally confirmed and therefore refrained from confirming duty. The findings were treated as internally inconsistent and legally unsustainable. In view of the statutory review direction and the necessity for proper consideration of the evidence and quantification, the matter required fresh examination by the original authority after granting the respondent an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order containing contradictory findings on clandestine removal and duty liability, without a legally sustainable determination of the demand, cannot be sustained and may be remanded for fresh adjudication.

---