Inconsistent treatment of multiple units as separate assessees required remand for fresh adjudication of liability.

Multiple units were treated inconsistently: the department proceeded on the basis that only one unit was the real manufacturer, yet the adjudicating authority confirmed duty and penalties collectively against several units as separate assessees. Because the liability basis was internally inconsistent, the order could not be sustained and required fresh consideration on both liability and the status of the units. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised against multiple units and the treatment of those units as separate assessees required the impugned order to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed collectively against more than one unit, while the departmental case proceeded on the footing that only one unit was the real manufacturer and the others were fictitious. The collective confirmation of duty and penalties, however, showed that the adjudicating authority had proceeded as if all the units were assessees and had thereby accepted their independent existence. In these circumstances, and following the earlier Supreme Court view on similar facts, the matter required reconsideration in full on the question of liability and the status of the units.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded by way of remand, leaving all issues to be decided afresh by the original authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication simultaneously treats multiple units as separate assessees while also proceeding on the footing that only one unit is the manufacturer, the matter requires fresh consideration because the basis of liability is internally inconsistent.

---