ORDER
N.K. Bajpai, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa, by which he has dropped the proceedings against the appellants, for a demand of duty of Rs. 23,162.15. The demand was issued on the ground that there was a discrepancy between the balance recorded in the RG 1 account and the statement which the appellants have submitted to the bank in connection with an advance from them. The appellants’ case before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa was that in mentioning the figures of their balance of the goods, they had also taken into account the quantities which had been sent to a job worker in the adjoining premises for processing. The Assistant Collector accepted this explanation and dropped the proceedings without passing a speaking order in which he should have dealt with the matter in detail. While dealing with the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) too has not dealt with the matter in detail and has merely set aside the order.
2. Shri Maingi, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants, had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of T.S. Seamen Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise – reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 475, and taken the plea that the department is required to prove their case by way of suitable corroboration of the allegations and mere reliance on a statement furnished to the bank by the appellants is not good enough to prove the charge against them.
3. Shri K.M. Mondal, the Ld. SDR, read out from the Show Cause Notice and submitted that the fact of variation between the figures recorded in the RG 1 and those figuring in their statement to the bank has not been disputed. The appellants have merely an explanation for the discrepancy. He suggested that in as much as none of the lower authorities have dealt with the matter in detail and had merely passed the general order, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to remand the case for fresh adjudication by going into each point in detail.
4. Shri Maingi has no objection to the suggestion.
5. After carefully looking into the orders passed by the lower authorities, I am satisfied that they have not passed speaking orders in the matter. It is necessary to examine the explanation of the appellants point-by-point and then to pass the speaking order. The orders of the lower authorities are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, after granting a hearing to the appellants.