2004 INSC 0964
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          Coats Viyella India Ltd.

                                                      Vs.

                                     Commissioner of Central Excise

                                       C.A.Nos.2108-2110 of 1998

                                 (Arijit Pasayat and P. P. Naolekar JJ.)

                                                 01.09.2004

                                                JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant questions correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras (for short 'the CEGAT').

3. Background facts are as follows:-

        "Four show cause notices were issued to the appellant indicating that the benefits
        available under Notification No. 297/1979, as amended, were not available to it, and
        it was not entitled to exemption from Additional Excise Duty. The appellant filed its
        reply and submitted that the notification was clearly applicable. The adjudicating
        authority did not accept the stand of the appellant and held that the benefits under the
        notification were not available to it. Appeals were preferred before the Collector of
        Central Excise (Appeals), who by his order dated 30-10-1997, held that the present
        appellant was entitled to the benefits under the aforesaid notification. Being aggrieved
        by such adjudication by the appellate authority, the Revenue filed appeals before the
        CEGAT. By the impugned order, the appellate authority's orders were set aside and
        those of the adjudicating officer were restored."

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant highlighted many aspects to contend that the view of the
first appellate authority was correct, and without even discussing as to how the conclusions
were erroneous, the CEGAT set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the
orders passed by the adjudicating authority. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order of the CEGAT.

5. We find that the first appellate authority, i.e. the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had
indicated reasons as to why it found the assessee-appellant to be entitled to benefits under the

1  SpotLaw
concerned notification. The CEGAT, while dealing with the appeals of the revenue did not
specifically refer to the conclusions of the first appellate authority and did not indicate any
reason as to why it was of the view that the conclusions were not correct. Least that was
required to be done was to indicate reasons for differing with the Collector of Central Excise
(Appeals)'s order. CEGAT has power to differ from the view expressed by the first
appellate's authority. But that is not unbriddled power. When a different view is taken,
reasons to support such view must be indicated clearly expressing as to why the lower
authority's view is wrong. That has not been done in the instant case.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order of the CEGAT and remit the matter
to it for fresh consideration. The parties shall be at liberty to place materials in support of
their respective stands. Thereafter, CEGAT shall adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance
with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

7. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

2  SpotLaw