2010 (10) TMI 186 - HC - Central Excise

Order Non-reasoned order arbitrary order It is, no doubt, true that there is no precise statutory or other definition of the term arbitrary . Arbitrariness in making an order by the authority manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making an order is only one of them. Every order passed by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained by the authority. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of its mind by the authority making the order. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained, is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary and in breach of the principles of natural justice hence illegal and unsustainable. - order set aside Matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of the Tribunal's order directing deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without considering the right to claim cenvat credit on input services.
2. Criticism of the Tribunal's order for lack of reasons and alleged arbitrariness.
3. Permissibility of the Tribunal to dismiss submissions without detailed discussion and reasons.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing a deposit of Rs. 97 lakh under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant questioned whether the Tribunal's decision considered their right to claim cenvat credit on input services rendered before March 1, 2006. The lack of reasons supporting the Tribunal's view was highlighted by the appellant's counsel, alleging arbitrariness and non-application of mind.

2. The appellant's counsel criticized the Tribunal's order for being arbitrary and devoid of proper reasoning. The absence of explicit reasons in the Tribunal's order raised concerns about the application of mind in reaching the decision. The judgment emphasized that every order from a judicial or quasi-judicial authority must demonstrate due application of mind, either within the order itself or in contemporaneous records. The failure to provide reasons was deemed indicative of arbitrariness, violating natural justice principles and rendering the order illegal and unsustainable.

3. The judgment set aside the impugned order, highlighting the necessity for reasoned decisions following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the prayer for dispensing with pre-deposit with a detailed and justified order. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, emphasizing the importance of proper application of mind and adherence to procedural fairness in judicial or quasi-judicial decisions.