Non-speaking excise order set aside for failing to address precedent and the manufacture stage of DG sets.

An adjudication order was found unsustainable because it did not engage with the cited Tribunal precedent or determine when the DG sets reached the stage of fully manufactured excisable goods. The reasoning also failed to fix the date on which the RG 1 stage was attained, even though deemed removal for captive consumption under Rule 49 could arise only after manufacture was complete. As the central issue was left without findings or explanation, the order was treated as non-speaking and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh consideration and determination of the relevant manufacture date.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order-in-original could be sustained when it did not deal with the cited precedent and did not determine the point at which the DG sets attained the status of fully manufactured excisable goods.

Analysis: The order under challenge recorded the earlier Tribunal decision cited before it but did not discuss why that decision was applicable or distinguishable. It also failed to fix the date on which the RG 1 stage was reached, though the question of deemed removal for captive consumption under Rule 49 could arise only after the goods became fully manufactured. In the absence of such findings, the order lacked the necessary reasoning for adjudication on the central issue.

Conclusion: The order was rightly treated as a non-speaking order and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh consideration and for determination of the date on which the DG sets became fully manufactured excisable goods.

---