2018 (10) TMI 1711 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - non-speaking order - submission of the parties not considered - HELD THAT - In the present case the impugned order merely records the dispute and that the Appellant supports the Appeal and the department representative opposes the Appeal. Thus this order being a non- speaking order is in breach of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. The question is answered in the negative i.e. in favor of the Appellant Revenue and against the Respondent Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Allegation of Tribunal passing a non-speaking order without considering submissions of parties.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Tribunal Order:
The High Court was presented with an appeal challenging the order dated 27th June, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent's appeal without duly considering the submissions of the parties and passing a speaking order. The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law raised by the appellant.

2. Non-Speaking Order:
Upon examination of the impugned order, the High Court observed that it failed to record the contentions or submissions made by the parties, thereby rendering it a non-speaking order. The Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal considering and reflecting the submissions of the parties in its order, as it is a fundamental aspect of the Rule of law. Citing precedent, the Court highlighted that providing reasons for the conclusion based on the parties' submissions is crucial. The absence of such considerations in the order rendered it in violation of natural justice and unsustainable in law.

3. Decision and Remedy:
Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant revenue and against the respondent assessee. The order dated 27th June, 2017 was quashed and set aside, with the appeal being restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The Court allowed the appeal on these grounds, keeping all contentions open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issue of a non-speaking order by the Tribunal, emphasizing the necessity of considering parties' submissions and providing reasons for the decision. The decision to quash the order and restore the appeal for fresh disposal underscored the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in administrative adjudications.