2014 (8) TMI 46 - AT - Customs

Validity of order passed - commissioner (Appeals) failed to list the issues or determine the points in dispute - Order neither self-speaking nor reasoned to meet judicial scrutiny - Held that - On an overall examination of the appellate order, it appears that the respondent was altogether deprived from the process of justice and in absence of recording the arguments and evidence of the respondent, the order cannot be said to be the order passed by application of mind - which is touching the root of the matter and violation of natural justice being patent is incurable at the appellate stage. Therefore, the appeal is remanded to the ld. commissioner (Appeals) to grant fair opportunity of hearing to respondent and upon recording the submissions as well as evidence, the appeal shall be disposed within three months of receipt of this order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Lack of proper determination of points in dispute, failure to follow legal procedures in passing the order, violation of natural justice, need for fair opportunity of hearing.

Issue 1: Lack of proper determination of points in dispute
The judgment highlights a crucial flaw in the appellate order where the ld. commissioner (Appeals) did not follow the law by failing to determine the points in dispute before deciding the appeal. It is emphasized that an appellate commissioner must first identify the issues at hand to understand the controversy and how it was addressed. The absence of listing the issues makes it challenging to comprehend the basis of the appeal and the corrective actions taken by the appellate authority, rendering the order legally insufficient. The judgment stresses the importance of clearly defining the points in dispute to ensure a fair and just resolution.

Issue 2: Failure to follow legal procedures in passing the order
The judgment points out that after determining the points for decision and considering arguments and evidence, the ld. appellate authority must provide reasons for the decision and record it accordingly. By not adhering to these procedural requirements, the impugned order passed by the ld. commissioner (Appeals) lacked transparency and failed to meet judicial scrutiny. It is noted that certain observations in the order indicated that the respondent did not receive proper opportunities for a fair hearing, further underscoring the procedural irregularities in the decision-making process.

Issue 3: Violation of natural justice and need for fair opportunity of hearing
The judgment references guidelines issued by the Apex court regarding the manner in which judicial orders should be written, emphasizing the importance of maintaining relevance to the facts of the case, providing a clear rationale, and ensuring readability and continuity in the order. The overall examination of the appellate order revealed that the respondent was deprived of the process of justice, with arguments and evidence not being adequately recorded, indicating a violation of natural justice. To address this fundamental defect and uphold principles of fairness, the appeal is remanded to the ld. commissioner (Appeals) with instructions to grant the respondent a fair opportunity of hearing. The order emphasizes the necessity of recording submissions and evidence, and mandates that the appeal be disposed of within three months to prevent undue delays that could compromise justice.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights critical procedural deficiencies in the appellate order, emphasizing the importance of proper determination of points in dispute, adherence to legal procedures, and upholding principles of natural justice. The decision to remand the appeal for a fair hearing underscores the significance of due process and transparency in the judicial system.