TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal i/b. PROMPT Legal For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J.B. Mishra ORDER P.C: This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2 The Appellant urges the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether in the facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 7th June, 2013, of the Commissioner, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2017, allowed the Revenue's appeal, by way of remand to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The impugned order dated 2nd November, 2017 holds the order dated 7th June, 2017 of the Commissioner, does not provide any 'head or tail' and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner and comes to the conclusion that the order has been passed without any reasons inasmuch as same does not exhibit the mind of the author. 8 On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel for the Revenue, submits that no interference is warranted. This on the ground that no prejudice would be caused as the impugned order has merely restored/ remanded the show cause notice to the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."may if it thinks fit", is not an arbitrary or subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal but a satisfaction reached through the filter of reasons in the context of the grievance of the parties before it. In the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal has concluded that the order of the Commissioner in appeal is, incapable of understanding without itself referring to the dispute and any part of the....