Conflicting appellate order on confiscation and duty liability required remand for a fresh speaking order.

An internally inconsistent appellate order on confiscation, valuation, duty liability and penalty required reconsideration because it reduced the penalty while also stating that the impugned order was set aside in its entirety. The ambiguity made the scope and effect of the appellate relief unclear, so a reasoned determination on all issues was necessary. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a fresh speaking order addressing confiscation, valuation, duty liability and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ambiguous and contradictory appellate order required remand for a fresh speaking order on confiscation, valuation, duty liability and penalty.

Analysis: The appellate order was found to be internally inconsistent, as it reduced the penalty while also stating that the impugned order was set aside in its entirety. Because the scope and effect of the order were unclear, the matter required reconsideration by the appellate authority with a reasoned determination on all issues raised.

Outcome: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing an appropriate speaking order after considering all issues, including confiscation, valuation and duty liability.

---