2019 (7) TMI 651 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of writ - Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Non-speaking order - the impugned order dated 11th May 2018 ignores earlier orders in respect of the same petitioner-assessee being final orders No.A/8537385374/ 17/EB dated 20th September 2016 and No.A/8674186742/ 17/EB dated 21st March 2017, which according to the petitioner is on identical facts - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the impugned order seems to do away with its obligation to be bound by the decisions of its coordinate Benches by observing that the issue of revenue neutrality is to be decided on the basis of facts of each case and the judgments cited by the appellant cannot be made applicable automatically . Once the litigant before the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, then a speaking order would require the Tribunal to consider those decisions and state how and why the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. - In the absence of this exercise is being done, the impugned order itself suffer from being a non speaking order. We find that where Authorities like the Tribunal functioning within the State of Maharashtra exercise jurisdiction in breach of principles of natural justice or in flagrant disregard of the law of precedents by not referring the issue to the President for constituting a Larger Bench of Tribunal, if it did not agree with the earlier decisions of the Tribunal then we would certainly exercise our writ jurisdiction. Merely stating that the earlier judgments would not be applicable, without more, would not meet the requirement of an order with reasons - impugned order is set aside

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's decision-making process in dismissing statutory appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on revenue neutrality and breach of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order dated 11th May 2018, which dismissed the statutory appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal ignored earlier final orders in the petitioner's own case, which held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to revenue neutrality. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, failed to distinguish the facts between the earlier decisions and the present case, leading to a non-speaking order. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision-making process was flawed by not considering its own previous decisions, resulting in a breach of natural justice.

2. The Revenue argued that the Court should not entertain the petition as the statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 35G of the Act was available to the petitioner. The Revenue further contended that the impugned order correctly found that the concept of revenue neutrality could not be invoked in the present case. However, the Court noted that the bar of entertaining a petition due to an alternate remedy being available is self-imposed. The Court clarified that it would exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases where quasi-judicial authorities breach natural justice, such as passing orders without reasons.

3. The Court emphasized that when a quasi-judicial authority's actions breach natural justice, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may be exercised. In this case, the Tribunal's failure to consider the petitioner's reliance on previous decisions and provide reasons for not applying them amounted to a breach of natural justice. The Court held that the impugned order was contrary to well-settled principles of law and, therefore, set it aside. The Court restored the appellant's appeals to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay set aside the Tribunal's order dated 11th May 2018 and restored the appellant's appeals for fresh consideration, highlighting the importance of natural justice and proper decision-making processes in quasi-judicial proceedings.