1993 (10) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Stay Order dated 13-4-1992.
2. Necessity of a detailed order for the Miscellaneous application.
3. Compliance with procedural rules and judicial propriety.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Stay Order dated 13-4-1992:

The Tribunal initially granted an unconditional stay to the appellant, M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, on 29-1-1992. The respondent filed a Miscellaneous application on 7-4-1992 seeking modification of the stay order. On 13-4-1992, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous application with the note, "Detailed order would follow," and proceeded with the hearing on merits. The Tribunal later concluded that the order dated 13-4-1992 was not valid in the eyes of law because no detailed order was issued, and the Member (Judicial) who was part of the bench had left the Tribunal, making it impossible to issue a detailed order later.

2. Necessity of a Detailed Order for the Miscellaneous Application:

The respondent argued that the order dated 13-4-1992 was not final as no detailed order was issued, citing Rule 26 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules and several judicial precedents. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases, including Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute, and M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., which emphasized the necessity of a reasoned and speaking order for judicial propriety and appellate review. The Tribunal concluded that a detailed order was necessary to validate the decision.

3. Compliance with Procedural Rules and Judicial Propriety:

The Tribunal examined procedural compliance, including the requirement for judgments to be signed and pronounced in open court as per Order XX, Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of recording reasons for judicial decisions to ensure transparency and fairness, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Surendra Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which stated that a judgment must be formally declared in open court to be valid. The Tribunal found that the procedural requirements were not met, as the detailed order was not issued, and the Member (Judicial) was no longer in a position to sign it.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the order dated 13-4-1992 was not a valid order in the eyes of law due to the lack of a detailed order and procedural non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue would be heard on merits on 15th November 1993.