Excise remand upheld as suppression and extended limitation issues were left for fresh adjudication on hearing.

A remand directing excise papers to the jurisdictional Collector for fresh adjudication was upheld because no infirmity was shown in transferring the matter to the competent authority. The Tribunal also accepted that alleged misstatement, suppression of relevant information, and invocation of the extended period of limitation could be examined by the Collector on remand, provided the appellants were given an opportunity of hearing. As the proceedings had already been validly remanded, the appellate challenge to both the remand and the scope of issues left open for determination was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise for adjudication, including the question of alleged misstatement, suppression of relevant information, and invocation of the extended period of limitation, called for interference.

Analysis: The Order-in-Appeal had set aside the Order-in-Original and directed transfer of the papers to the jurisdictional Collector for decision by the competent authority. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that course, and held that the question of alleged misstatement and suppression should also be considered by the Collector after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal further noted that the matter had already been remanded and that the appellate challenge did not merit acceptance.

Conclusion: The challenge to the remand and to the finding enabling consideration of the extended period of limitation was rejected, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order validly remands excise proceedings to the competent adjudicating authority, the appellate forum will not interfere merely because the questions of suppression and extended limitation are also left for determination on remand, provided an opportunity of hearing is to be afforded.

---