1989 (7) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the oral order pronounced by the Bench on 19-4-1988 allowing the appeal with the remark "Order to follow" amounts to an "Order" passed by the Appellate Tribunal within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Preliminary Objection:
The appellants, dissatisfied with an order of recovery of Rs. 1,13,802.62, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was heard on 19-4-1988, and the Bench orally pronounced the order allowing the appeal with the remark "Order to follow." Due to the illness of a member and the transfer of another, the reasoned order was not written. The case was reopened for rehearing, leading to a preliminary objection by the appellants that the oral order constituted a final order.

2. Definition and Legal Interpretation of "Order":
The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, does not define "Order" in Section 35-C. The Tribunal referred to definitions in the Code of Civil Procedure and legal dictionaries, concluding that an "Order" involves a formal expression of a decision. The Tribunal emphasized that an order must be reasoned and written, as required by Rule 26 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

3. Requirement of a Reasoned Order:
The Tribunal highlighted that the Act's scheme and provisions necessitate a reasoned order. Section 35-C mandates that the Tribunal pass orders after giving parties an opportunity to be heard. The finality of the Tribunal's orders, subject to appeal or reference, implies that orders must be reasoned to ensure transparency and fairness.

4. Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents to support the necessity of a reasoned order:
- Tarapore & Co. v. Tractors Exports: Final orders must dispose of the rights of parties.
- Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy: A final decision must be unalterable except by appeal or revision.
- Govindrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh: Recording reasons ensures decisions are lawful and not arbitrary.
- Mahabir Prasad v. State of U.P.: The duty to provide reasons is implicit in the nature of appellate jurisdiction.
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Walchand and Co.: The Tribunal must record reasons in support of its decisions.

5. Analysis of Oral Pronouncement:
The Tribunal concluded that the oral pronouncement "Appeal allowed. Order to follow" without a reasoned order does not constitute a valid order under Section 35-C. The formal expression of a decision must be accompanied by intelligible grounds or reasons.

6. Inapplicability of Certain Judgments:
The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, where judgments were dictated but not signed. In the present case, no judgment was dictated, and the formal expression of the decision was incomplete.

7. Conclusion:
The Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection, holding that the oral pronouncement on 19-4-1988 was not a valid order under Section 35-C. The case was rightly reopened for rehearing due to the absence of a reasoned and written order.

Summary:
The Tribunal concluded that an oral pronouncement without a reasoned and written order does not constitute a valid order under Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The requirement for a reasoned order is implicit in the Act's provisions and supported by judicial precedents. The preliminary objection by the appellants was overruled, and the case was correctly reopened for rehearing.