2020 (1) TMI 195 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Commissioner had relied upon extensive evidence supported by detailed reasons to come to the conclusion that there was clandestine removal of excisable goods - HELD THAT - The Tribunal by his impugned order dated 23rd July 2018 set aside that order - We regret to note that the reasons in support of its order are grossly inadequate and most unconvincing. If such detailed order of the Commissioner had to be set aside, the Tribunal ought to have backed its order with cogent reasons. After all, a huge amount of revenue is involved. There is perversity in the order of the Tribunal - Since questions of facts are involved, we do not think it fit to hear out the appeal but to remand it to the Tribunal to hear out the matter afresh - whole matter is remanded to the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties within six months of communication of this order.

Summary

Issues: Setting aside of Commissioner's order by Tribunal due to inadequate reasons. Perversity in Tribunal's order necessitating remand for fresh hearing.

In this case, the High Court of Calcutta dealt with the setting aside of the Commissioner's order by the Tribunal. The Commissioner had concluded that there was clandestine removal of excisable goods leading to evasion of excise duty. The Tribunal's order, dated 23rd July 2018, was criticized for its grossly inadequate and unconvincing reasons. The High Court expressed regret over the lack of detailed reasoning by the Tribunal, especially considering the substantial revenue involved. The Court found perversity in the Tribunal's order and decided not to hear the appeal but remand it back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a reasoned order to be passed within six months of the communication of the judgment.

The High Court emphasized the importance of cogent reasons in judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving significant financial implications. The Court's decision to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing was based on the perceived inadequacy and lack of convincing grounds in the Tribunal's previous order. By allowing the appeal to the extent of setting aside the Tribunal's order and ordering a rehearing, the High Court sought to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the issues at hand, particularly concerning the alleged evasion of excise duty. The judgment highlighted the necessity for detailed and well-supported decisions in matters of taxation and revenue to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of the legal process.