B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority dated 17/18-2-1983. By this order the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority has classified the torch switches manufactured by the petitioner assessee under Tariff Item No. 61.
(2.) The petitioner manufactures inter alia dry cell battery torches. It manufactures switches used in those torches. Question arose whether these switches should be classified under Tariff Item No. 61 or under Tariff Item No. 68. The duty under T.I. 61 is higher than the rate under T.I. 68. Tariff Item 61 reads as follows:" Electric Lighting Fittings namely :- Switches, Plugs, and Sockets, all kinds; Chokes and Starters for fluorescent Tubes." Tariff Item 68 is, of course, residuary item and it is not in dispute before us that if the said switches, do not fall under Item 61, they would fall under Tariff Item 68.
(3.) In the first instance, the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority decided by his order dated 16-12-1982 that the said switches must be classified under Tariff Item 61. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Appellate Collector allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority for a fresh decision on the question of classification of the said goods after giving the petitioner a fresh and full opportunity to present its case. It would be appropriate to extract paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Appellate Order: "4. It is observed that the questions involved in the case related to a matter of classification of torch switches. It is apparent that all matters involving classification disputes, by their very nature, involve serious issue. A decision on classification issue is, in fact, the corner-stone of administration of Central Excise Law. Besides, it has a repetitive effect on assessment and collection of Central Excise Duty. Therefore, adjudication of such a matter must in all fairness to the assessee, be done after a detailed analysis of various aspects of the matter and proper evaluation of evidence. Such decisions must invariably be arrived at through a detailed process of reasoning. Surprisingly, however, I observe that the Assistant Collector's order does not throw any light on the evidence and the reasons which have guided him towards the conclusion he has arrived at. It is a classical example of a non-speaking order and is, therefore, bad in law and liable to be set aside. 5. The appellants have made other submissions on the merits of their case. However, as the Order of the Assistant Collector does not disclose his mental process nor does it indicate the grounds for his decision, I refrain from commenting on the merits of the issues involved in this case. 6. For the reasons discussed above, I set aside, without prejudice, the Assistant Collector's Orders. He may, however, reconsider the matter de novo after disclosing to the appellants the grounds on which reclassification of torch switches is proposed and also after giving them a fresh and full opportunity to present their case.";