2017 (11) TMI 654 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - dismissal of appeal by a non-speaking order - Held that - The tribunal is a final fact finding authority. Though the tribunal has considered the grounds of appeal, there is no discussion - by relying on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Modern Alloys - 2010 (285) ELT 364 (P&H), tribunal dismissed the appeal - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to CESTAT, Chennai. CESTAT, Chennai is directed to issue notice to both parties, provide opportunity, consider the issues raised in the appeal and pass orders on the appeal on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the final order of CESTAT, Chennai based on substantial questions of law.
2. Lack of discussion in the tribunal's order leading to dismissal of the appeal.
3. Requirement for a speaking order with valid reasons as per legal precedents.

Analysis:

1. The High Court refrained from delving into the substantial questions of law challenged in the final order of CESTAT, Chennai. However, the Court noted that the tribunal dismissed the appeal based on a non-speaking order, without a detailed discussion on the grounds of appeal. The Court highlighted the importance of a reasoned decision and referred to judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court to emphasize the necessity of providing valid reasons for decisions.

2. The Court cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, to point out that a tribunal's dismissal of an appeal without discussion cannot be approved. The Court emphasized that the tribunal, as a final fact-finding authority, must provide a detailed analysis and reasons for its decisions, especially when relying on precedents from other courts.

3. Drawing from legal precedents such as HVPNL v. Mahavir and Commr. of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. Fitwel Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd., the Court reiterated the necessity of a speaking order that considers pleadings, submissions, evidence, and necessary points for consideration. In light of these principles, the High Court set aside the tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to CESTAT, Chennai, directing it to issue notice to both parties, provide a fair opportunity, consider the appeal's issues, and pass a well-reasoned order within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, overturned the tribunal's order, and instructed CESTAT, Chennai to reexamine the appeal with proper consideration and a detailed, reasoned decision within a stipulated period, emphasizing the importance of providing valid reasons for judicial decisions.