2010 (2) TMI 488 - HC - Central Excise

Remand of the group of appeal - on interim application of some of the parties to appeal, entire groups of appeal remanded by Tribunal without affording any opportunity in other appeal to appellant department. Held that - right of appeal of department, as provided by statute, was negated in other appeal which was decided without considering their merits. Facts in interim applications in cases where remand was ordered may not be applicable in other appeals, and they could not be decided in such cavalier fashion. Even though issue may be similar or identical, they have to be considered on basis of facts, pros/cons, submissions, material/evidence, and thereafter decision taken.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal remanded due to inadequate consideration of appeals, denial of substantive right of appeal, lack of reasons recorded for the decision.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the manner in which the Tribunal disposed of a group of appeals. The Tribunal decided the appeals while considering interim applications of only three parties, neglecting the other appeals without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. This approach was deemed slipshod and denied the substantive right of appeal to the appellant-department.
2. The learned counsels representing the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision was hasty and affected the valuable right of appeal of the appellant-department. They emphasized that the right of appeal is a substantive right that cannot be denied without a fair hearing. They pointed out that the Tribunal's decision was made without considering the merits and facts of each appeal adequately.
3. The High Court noted that the right of appeal is a substantive right vested in the aggrieved party and should not be negated without due process. The Court highlighted that the right to file an appeal crystallizes only after a decision is made by the appellate authority, and this right cannot be taken away arbitrarily. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to dispose of the appeals without proper consideration was deemed unjust.
4. The Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for decisions, citing judicial pronouncements. It stated that reasons are essential for good administration and judicial review. In this case, the Tribunal failed to provide reasons for its decision to dispose of the appeals hastily while considering interim applications. This lack of reasoning was considered a denial of justice.
5. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matters back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after affording both sides a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court stressed the importance of considering the issue involved, evaluating the submissions, and providing a reasoned decision based on the facts and evidence presented.

This detailed analysis showcases the High Court's thorough examination of the issues involved in the judgment, focusing on the denial of the right of appeal, lack of proper consideration by the Tribunal, and the necessity of recording reasons for decisions.