ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.
2. In the common order impugned in these two appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of two orders-in-original which were appealed before him. In the first Order Nos. 163-64/97-98, dated 6-11-1997, the Assistant Commissioner had held that the spent palladium used by the appellant as catalyst could not be so cleared for regeneration under the provisions of Rule 57F(2). In the second Order-in-Original No. 168-69/97-98, the issue before the Assistant Commissioner was the eligibility to duty on the shortages in the palladium between the quantity which was cleared and the quantity, which was received after regeneration.
3. In the order impugned in the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the issue in Order-in-original Nos. 163-64/97-98, dated 6-11-1997 whether clearances of palladium were validly made under the permission granted under Rule 57F(2) or not. Out of the total amount involved, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Rs. 11.60 lacs approximately, the major portion of Rs. 9.06 lacs is accounted for by this issue. Since a common order has been passed, the entire order therefore has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the appeal according to law.
4. Accordingly both appeals are allowed and impugned orders set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall dispose of the matter and pass speaking orders in accordance with law.
