2011 (6) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Non-disclosure of reasons for the findings arrived in the order - Refund claim - Commissioner (Appeals) while partly modifying the order passed by the adjudicating authority has held that certain services should not be the subject matter of claim for refund whereas certain other could be part thereof - before arriving at the finding, neither the matter has been discussed with reference to the facts and law applicable thereto nor any reasoning is disclosed in support of such finding - Held that - It is well settled law that the order passed by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority must disclose the reason for arriving at the finding based on which the matter is decided, order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate order on non-disclosure of reasons for findings.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Delhi arose from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi, partially allowing the Department's appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order sanctioning a refund claim by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was challenged on various grounds, but it was deemed unnecessary to address all those grounds. The Tribunal specifically focused on the issue of non-disclosure of reasons for the findings in the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) had modified the adjudicating authority's order, indicating certain services ineligible for refund claims while allowing others. However, the Tribunal observed that the impugned order lacked a discussion of facts and applicable law, with no reasoning provided to support the findings. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial or quasi-judicial orders must disclose the reasons for the conclusions reached to ensure transparency and legal validity.

The Tribunal, led by Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, set aside the impugned order due to the absence of disclosed reasoning and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in compliance with the law. It was explicitly stated that the Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to handle the matter promptly, considering the claim's nature. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal, with the expectation of a reasoned decision in the subsequent proceedings.