2011 (4) TMI 516 - SC - Central Excise

whether or not there was any manufacturing activity - The Tribunal has chosen to set aside a reasoned order passed by the Commissioner and while doing so, it was of utmost necessity for the Tribunal to record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Commissioner - It clearly stated that in absence of any material to show that in commercial circle the bars and bright bars are different, the interference drawn by the Tribunal cannot be upheld - Appeals are allowed by way of remand to Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CEGAT order setting aside Commissioner's order without proper reasoning.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals against the CEGAT order dated 10-6-2002, which set aside the Commissioner's order as illegal without providing sufficient reasoning. The Court observed that the Tribunal failed to record any reasons or findings to support its conclusion. The judgment noted that the Tribunal did not appreciate the facts or the law laid down, leading to the setting aside of a reasoned order by the Commissioner without proper justification. The Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for disagreeing with the Commissioner's findings and discussing the evidence on record. Reference was made to a previous decision by the Court regarding the necessity of evidence in commercial circles to uphold any interference drawn by the Tribunal.

The Court held that the Tribunal should have discussed the evidence thoroughly to determine if there was any manufacturing activity by the respondents in the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh and de novo consideration of all the issues. The Court instructed the Tribunal to record reasons for its decision and urged for an expeditious hearing of the appeal. It was emphasized that all issues should be considered, and any supporting evidence should be filed for consideration.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning and thorough consideration of evidence in such matters. The judgment highlighted the importance of recording reasons for decisions and conducting a comprehensive analysis of all issues involved in the case.