2008 (10) TMI 93 - HC - Central Excise

In the order of the Tribunal the penalty imposed upon the Director has been set aside - Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be an order made in accordance with law Held, no - Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty without assigning any convincing and cogent reasons tribunal did not applied mind before passing the order - Impugned order is set aside

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to composite order by Revenue, Setting aside penalty on Director by Tribunal, Lack of reasoning in Tribunal's order, Compliance with legal requirements for Tribunal orders.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-Revenue challenged a composite order by the Tribunal that set aside the penalty imposed on the Director. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order lacked reasoning regarding the penalty imposition. The Tribunal's order was cryptic, lacking proper justification for setting aside the penalty.

2. The substantial question of law proposed by the Revenue was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty on the Director under Rule 209A (now Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002). However, the Court refrained from addressing this question and instead formulated a broader question: whether the Tribunal's order was made in accordance with the law.

3. The Tribunal's order, delivered by Member (Judicial), reduced penalties imposed on the manufacturing unit but set aside the penalty on the Director. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order lacked reasoning for this decision, which was essential for a quasi-judicial forum like the Tribunal.

4. The Court emphasized that orders by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act must reflect an application of mind, considering the financial implications on both parties. The Tribunal's order should provide reasons to avoid arbitrariness or unfairness in decisions.

5. Legal precedents highlighted the necessity of providing reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial orders to ensure clarity and fairness. Failure to give reasons can render orders unsustainable and hinder the appellate process. The Court reiterated the importance of reasoned orders for effective judicial review.

6. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders by the Tribunal. Orders lacking reasons make it difficult for appellate authorities to assess the correctness of decisions, affecting the overall judicial process.

7. In light of the legal position on providing reasons in orders, the Court found the Tribunal's order lacking in justification and reasoning. Consequently, the Court answered the substantial question of law negatively, indicating that the Tribunal's order was not made in accordance with the law.

8. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, restoring it to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing with proper reasoning and compliance with legal requirements. The Tribunal was directed to reexamine the matter on merits after providing a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.