2016 (5) TMI 510 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Tribunal s order - Non-speaking order passed - Held that - the rest of the order is the submission of the parties only. We are not persuaded to assume the jurisdiction of the Tribunal all over again contrary to Section 35G of the Act. Therefore, the order dated 1-8-2014 in its present form is held to be unsustainable as non-speaking and cryptic. It is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing a reasoned and speaking order displaying complete application of mind to the facts, issues involved, the findings of the previous authorities along with the reasoned conclusions of the Tribunal. Nothing in the present order can be deemed or construed as any opinion or observation on merits of the matter with regard to either of the parties as the matter is remanded limited on the question of Tribunal having passed a completely non-speaking order displaying non-application of mind hindering judicial review to even ascertain that a law of question was involved. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty to pass reasoned and speaking orders by quasi-judicial bodies, Tribunals, and Courts.
2. Applicability of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act for appeals on questions of law.
3. Requirement of a reasoned order for judicial review.
4. Setting aside non-speaking and cryptic orders.
5. Remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a reasoned and speaking order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment emphasizes the duty of administrative authorities, quasi-judicial bodies, Tribunals, and Courts to pass reasoned and speaking orders that demonstrate the application of mind. This duty is crucial, especially when the order is subject to challenge before a superior Court or forum.

2. The appeal in question was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, which allows appeals to the High Court only on questions of law. The Court clarified that it cannot function as a regular appellate forum for challenging Tribunal orders, as established in previous judgments.

3. The Court highlighted the necessity of a reasoned order for judicial review, citing instances where the Tribunal failed to address essential aspects such as facts of the case, decisions by lower authorities, arguments presented, applicable laws, and reasons for the final decision. Such non-speaking orders were deemed unsustainable in law and required to be set aside.

4. In this case, the Tribunal's order was found to be cryptic and non-speaking, lacking essential details for judicial review. As a result, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a comprehensive, reasoned, and speaking order within a specified timeframe.

5. The Court clarified that the remand was solely based on the Tribunal's failure to provide a speaking order, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The parties were instructed to cooperate, and the Tribunal was granted the authority to proceed ex parte against defaulting parties, ensuring a fair and efficient resolution process.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, the duty to provide detailed and reasoned orders, and the significance of judicial review in upholding the rule of law within the legal framework of the Central Excise Act.