2016 (6) TMI 715 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner (Appeals) act in accordance with the mandate of section 35A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The present order which is impugned is suffers from legal infirmity for no issues framed nor cogent reason stated. Therefore, that is returned to the appellate Commissioner to carry out his duty in accordance with section 35A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and granting full length of opportunity of hearing to the appellant shall frame the issue, state the reason of his decision and his decision to meet judicial scrutiny.

Summary

Issues: Lack of framing issues and stating reasons in the appellate order

In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI highlighted the importance of adhering to the mandate of section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to follow a structured approach in passing orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the order must go through three phases: framing points for determination, deciding on the issues, and providing reasons for the decision. Failure to follow these phases results in the order lacking judicial scrutiny. The Tribunal stressed that the appellate authority must frame issues for decision and state reasons to ensure a speaking and reasoned order that upholds natural justice principles.

Furthermore, the judgment pointed out that the impugned order suffered from legal infirmity due to the absence of framed issues and cogent reasons. As a remedy, the appellate Commissioner was directed to fulfill his duties in accordance with section 35A(4) by framing issues, stating reasons for decisions, and granting the appellant a full opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the order to meet judicial scrutiny by following the prescribed legal process.

Moreover, the judgment referenced guidelines issued by the Apex Court regarding the writing of judicial and quasi-judicial orders. These guidelines emphasized the importance of maintaining relevance to the facts of the case, clarity in presenting the ratio decidendi, readability, avoiding excessive legal citations, timely delivery of judgments, and sensitivity towards public sentiments. The Tribunal underscored the significance of adhering to these guidelines to ensure the quality and effectiveness of judicial orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the appeal to the appellate authority, emphasizing the necessity for framing issues, stating reasons, and following the prescribed legal procedures to uphold the principles of natural justice and judicial scrutiny. The judgment serves as a reminder of the essential requirements for appellate orders to be considered valid and legally sound.