2013 (10) TMI 170 - HC - Central Excise

Non Speaking Order No Evidence of Clandestine Removal of Goods Held that - The judgment and order the learned Tribunal had upset the order of the Commissioner of Appeal without assigning any reason as to why the reasoned order of the Commissioner was not acceptable - we think the learned Tribunal should rehear the matter - We set aside the judgment and order, and remand the matter and restore the Tribunal Appeal - We record that we have not decided anything in the matter as we feel the judgment and order was a non-speaking one and particularly when the Commissioner of Appeal had decided in favour of the assessee with reasons and unless those reasons were held to be absurd and perverse on the facts and circumstances of the case this cannot be brushed aside so lightly.

Summary

Issues:
Admission of appeal based on substantial question of law, Setting aside of Commissioner's order by Tribunal without reasons, Remand of matter to Tribunal for rehearing and providing reasons within two months, Consideration of Commissioner's reasoned order in favor of assessee.

Analysis:
The High Court admitted the appeal after hearing the advocate for the appellant on the substantial question of law, which questioned the Tribunal's justification in setting aside the Commissioner's order without providing reasons. The Court found the Tribunal's decision to be lacking in rationale and directed a rehearing of the matter. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The Court highlighted the fact that the Tribunal's judgment was non-speaking and failed to address the reasoned order of the Commissioner, which favored the assessee. The Court stressed the need for decisions to be supported by valid reasons and not to disregard well-founded findings without proper justification. The Court refrained from making a decision in the matter, emphasizing the importance of considering the Commissioner's reasoned decision unless proven to be unreasonable in the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the application and the appeal, instructing all parties to adhere to the order provided. The Court emphasized the significance of providing reasons for decisions, especially when overturning previous judgments, and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the matter and provide detailed reasons within a specified timeframe. The judgment underscored the importance of justifying decisions based on legal grounds and not dismissing well-supported findings without proper consideration.