ORDER
1. The petitioner, namely, M/s. Rasoi Vanaspati & Industries Ltd., Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the company) filed a Revision Petition under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the Act) before the Government of India on 1st of September, 1979 against the order dated 17th of July, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta in appeal No. 356/CO/1978. The said Revision Petition stood transferred to this Tribunal by virtue of the fiction created by Section 35-P of the Act and is, therefore, being disposed off as such.
2. There are as many as 8 grounds of appeal. The primary contention in ground No. ] is that the order of the Appellate Collector is not a speaking one and, therefore, should be quashed. In ground No. 2 it is submitted that on a plain reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the rejection of the assessee’s appeal by the first appellate authority was without any valid reasoning. Ground Nos. 2 and 4 we like to notice as follows :-
“2. It would be evident on a plain reading of the impugned order that the learned Appellate Collector has briefly summarised the order in original in the text of his order and rejected the appeal petition without any valid reasoning.
* * * *
4. In para 4 of the appeal petition it has been submitted that the subject goods were classified under T.I. 68 of the Act and not under any other item. The relevant classification list in form 1 was produced before him during persona! Hearing, vide para (2) of our written submission on 4-4-78 filed with him. So the petitioners had no opportunity to prefer appeal when no classification list was approved under T.I. 12 of the Act for the product though duty was realised and paid under protest.
3. In ground No. 5 the petitioner has raised another point that the realisation of duty on industrial Hard Oil (Super hardened V.P.) under two Tariff Items was arbitrary and illegal and that the Appellate Collector simply failed to understand the submissions made before him.
4. Before us Mr. G.P. Chatterjee, a Director of the Company repeatedly drew our attention to the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs as also that of Appellate Collector. For the respondent Mrs. V. Zutshi, Sr. D.R., with equal vehemence submitted that whatever may be the language used and reasonings given by the Excise Authorities the ultimate decision subjecting the petitioner to two tariff duties could not be said to be wrong or suffering from any infirmity.
5. Like the petitioner’s representative, Mrs. V. Zutshi also addressed before us lengthly arguments.
6. We, however, do not propose to deal with either the petitioner’s arguments as also the respondent’s reply thereto because of our inclination to agree with the primary contention that the order of the Appellate Collector which has given rise to cause of action for the present appeal does not project either the primary facts or the reasons for rejection of the appeal and for this purpose reproduce paras 2 to 4 of his order below :-
“2. In this case, I find that the appellant removed hydrogenated processed V.N.E. Oil (linseed oil), falling under Item 68, for Industrial purposes as super hardened V.P. or vegetable tallow, during the period from December ’75 to March ’76, without payment of Central Excise duty. A show cause notice was issued to the party and the Assistant Collector in his order dated 31-8-76 demanded the duty on grounds that as soon as V.N.E. Oil is processed, it attracts the Central Excise duty under item 12 of Central Excise Tariff and after hydrogenation the processed V.N.E. Oil loses its identity and becomes a separate product attracting duty under T.C. 68. Since super hardened V.P. is a product which has lost its identity, and emerged as a distant and different product.
3. The appellant being aggrieved with the order of the Assistant Collector, contended that the super hardened V.P. is a product which does not fall under any item of Central Excise Tariff and the classification of the product in question by the Adjudicating officer is not correct. The party also referred to a Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of South Behar Sugar Mill v. Union of India and Ors. and contended that the said case of South Behar Sugar Mill is quite identical and similar to the instant case and as such the provisions of Notification No. 33/63 as attracted by Assistant Collector in his order is not sustainable.
4. If the appellants have any objection for classification of the processed V.N.E. Oil under Item 12 of Central Excise Tariff, they should have preferred an appeal against the said classification if they so desired. In any event that is a separate issue. The point at issue in the present case is whether the so-called super hardened V.P. or vegetable tallow is classified under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. From the facts, I find that the product has all the characteristics of a manufactured product having distinctive name, character and use, and it is different from that of processed V.N.E. Oil falling under Item 12 of Central Excise Tariff.”
7. From para 2 we notice that though the charge was that the petitioner removed hydrogenated processed V.N.E. oil falling under item 68 without payment of Central Excise duty, the petitioner was subjected to excise duty under item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff.
8. In para 4 it is stated that if any objection for classification of the processed V.N.E. Oil under item 12 of Central Excise Tariff was to be taken, the petitioner should have preferred an appeal on the point. Such observations are in clear contradiction of the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs who in terms in his order of 27th of December, 1976 recorded that the petitioner agitated that the same product could not be subjected to two different tariff rates which language clearly implied that two tariffs were charged on the same value.
9. Without going into further details and the merits we hope to be understood in proper perspective if we only observe that orders which can be subject matter of review or appeal should be speaking ones and it is not sufficient in law if summary contents is recorded and decision given without detailing corresponding relevant facts. The order of the Appellate Collector is vacated with the directions that he shall pass a fresh order within 4 months of the receipt of this judgment giving all the facts and reasons for his decision. We are not binding the Appellate Collector in any manner but for the period prescribed for him to decide the case afresh as observed above.
10. For purposes of statistics, the appeal is treated as allowed.