2017 (2) TMI 61 - AT - Central Excise

Neither the adjudication order nor the appellate order makes any head or tail of the issue. Therefore, matter is remanded to the appellate authority to bring the issue precisely to the public record and order passed in accordance with law - the law expects the appellate authority to discharge his duty in the manner required by law. The said expectation of law is embodied in section 35A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Law is well settled that public authority should pass public order publicly for the judicial scrutiny. The present order failing to meet judicial scrutiny for its legal infirmity, deserves to be remanded for rehearing and passing appropriate order in accordance with law - appeal is remanded to appellate authority.

Summary

Issues:
Remand of the matter due to lack of clarity in adjudication and appellate orders.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI highlighted the lack of clarity in both the adjudication and appellate orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clearly framing the issues, examining the evidence, and applying the law in accordance with the requirements of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal pointed out that failure to follow these processes renders the order ineffective in serving the purpose of the law. The matter was remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a new order that meets the legal standards, including stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons for the decision as mandated by law.

Furthermore, the judgment referenced guidelines laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in a different case regarding how to write a quasi-judicial order. These guidelines emphasized the importance of maintaining relevance to the facts of the case, ensuring a clear correlation with applicable law and facts, and avoiding unnecessary legal complexities that may confuse rather than clarify. The Tribunal stressed the need for a judgment to have a sustained chronology, readability, and a flow that maintains the reader's interest. Additionally, the judgment should be free from rhetoric and written in a manner that considers the psychology of the reader. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of pronouncing judgments promptly, within a reasonable timeframe, to avoid sending the wrong signal to litigants and society.

In conclusion, the appeal was remanded to the appellate authority to ensure a new order is passed in compliance with the legal requirements and guidelines provided, aiming for a speaking order that can withstand judicial scrutiny.