2022 (5) TMI 1117 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal of tobacco/gutkha without payment of central excise duty and education cess - HELD THAT - A coordinate bench of this Court in PRABHAT ZARDA FACTORY CO., K.N. MEHROTRA, PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR ARYA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI 2018 (5) TMI 1670 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that In the present case, the impugned order on all aspects and contentions merely reproduces the order-in-original, without specifically and independently examining and dealing with diverse contentions. Reference and independent and exhaustive elucidation of the factual contentions raised by the appellants and consideration of legal issues based upon the said contentions is conspicuously lacking and missing. The impugned order suffers on this account. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent with an order of remand to the Tribunal for fresh decision - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order dated 20.04.2017 by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Substantive questions of law - Requirement of reasoned and speaking order by quasi-judicial authorities - Setting aside of impugned order - Fresh decision by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal against the order dated 20.04.2017 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted a previous judgment by a coordinate bench in a related matter, which highlighted substantial questions of law regarding the examination and discussion of contentions and issues of facts and law by the Tribunal. The coordinate bench emphasized the importance of a reasoned and speaking order by quasi-judicial authorities, citing the Supreme Court's observations on the significance of recording reasons to ensure justice and transparency in decision-making. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to independently and specifically address the contentions raised by the appellants, thus not meeting the legal requirements outlined by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh on merits, without being influenced by the previous order.

The High Court clarified that its judgment would apply to the appellant despite an earlier indication that it would not, as the circumstances had changed since that observation was made. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 specifically concerning the appellant. The Tribunal was instructed to conduct a fresh review of the matter on merits, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the contentions without being swayed by previous observations. The appeal was disposed of in these terms, emphasizing the need for a thorough and independent decision-making process by quasi-judicial authorities to uphold fairness, transparency, and the rule of law in judicial proceedings.