Non-speaking appellate orders and captive consumption valuation must be addressed on the correct record and statutory basis.

An appellate order that ignores a pleaded limitation objection and the written submissions on record is non-speaking and liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice. The text also states that captively consumed goods must be valued under the valuation rule applicable to captive consumption, and that an unrelated historical job-work value cannot be mechanically adopted. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication, with directions to decide limitation and valuation afresh by a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate order was unsustainable for failure to consider the plea of limitation and the written submissions, and (ii) whether the assessable value of captively consumed goods could be determined on the basis of old job-work values instead of the valuation framework applicable to captive consumption.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate order was unsustainable for failure to consider the plea of limitation and the written submissions.

Analysis: The limitation objection arising from the corrigendum and the change in the basis of demand was not dealt with in any meaningful manner. The written submissions filed before the first appellate authority were also not reflected in the reasoning. An order that omits consideration of a material ground and ignores the submissions on record is non-speaking and cannot stand.

Conclusion: This issue is answered in favour of the assessee. The order was rightly held liable to be set aside on the ground of non-consideration of limitation and violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessable value of captively consumed goods could be determined on the basis of old job-work values instead of the valuation framework applicable to captive consumption.

Analysis: For captive consumption, valuation had to be examined under the applicable valuation rule governing such goods. The use of a job-work value from 1992, unrelated to the relevant period and different factual matrix, was treated as an unsound basis for valuation. The matter therefore required fresh consideration on the correct valuation parameters in the de novo proceedings.

Conclusion: This issue is answered in favour of the assessee to the extent that the old job-work basis could not be mechanically adopted; the valuation had to be reconsidered afresh.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with directions to decide all issues, including limitation and valuation, by a speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider a material plea and relevant written submissions renders the order non-speaking, and valuation of captively consumed goods must be determined on the correct statutory basis for the relevant period, not on an unrelated historical job-work figure.

---