Judgment:
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy
Heard both sides. The appellant-assessee as well as the department have come up in appeal against the very same impugned order.
2. Shri R.Raghavan, ld. advocate appearing for the appellant-assessee states that the lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty amount but has given no finding on the duty demand which was confirmed by the original authority even though the appellant-assessee had specifically appealed against such confirmation of the demand.
3. The grievance of the department is that the lower appellate authority has not examined the legality, propriety and correctness of the invocation of Rule 57I (4) and Rule 57U (6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has given no finding while vacating the order of penalty.
4. Considering the submissions from both sides and noting that both sides are aggrieved by the non-speaking impugned order, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decision by the lower appellate authority. He shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides and decide the matter afresh. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.