ORDER
R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. Though, this day, only the stay application was listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides and with their consent, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself.
2. The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal GS/240/B-I/93 (V.s (I) 553/92/4108), dated 7-7-1993 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.
3. In the aforesaid order, the Collector (Appeals) considered the order of the Assistant Collector confirming the total demand of Rs. 18,70,030/- raised in nine show cause notices issued to the appellant company. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector relating to the demand for “protobex” amounting to Rs. 6,63,363.67 and regarding the remaining portion of the order, he set aside for de novo adjudication in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
4. Shri J.J. Bhatt, the ld. Adv. pleads that when the composite order is challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the Collector (Appeals) could not have confirmed part of the demand and remanded the remaining part of the demand only for de novo adjudication on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. On a perusal of the order, we find that the Collector (Appeals) has gone by the technicality of the issues decided on the Show Cause Notices. In any case, when he concedes that the composite order is violative of the principles of natural justice, he cannot just confirm one part of the order and hold that other part of the order is only violative of the principles of natural justice. The entire order calls for de novo consideration, if the Collector (Appeals) feels that the order vitiates violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of this, we agree with the request made by the appellants for remand of the case back to the Assistant Collector for consideration even the duty demand of Rs. 6,63,364/- in respect of Protobex. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
6. Since the appeal itself is allowed by way of remand, the stay application does not survive for consideration and the same is treated as disposed of.