9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der indicates that the allegation in show cause notice was not tested in adjudication to neatly bring out the governing facts and attendant circumstances calling for demand by the adjudication order. Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to examine object of contract to test the same with evidence to come to a conclusion that infrastructure service was provided. An abrupt conclusion was thereby drawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to have been done. 3. When we find that the matter is of great importance to revenue because of the demand of Rs. 5,52,22,201/- has been raised in adjudication by a non-speaking order and that too without any good reason, we send the matter back to the ld. adjudicating authority to analyse each and every allegation in the show cause notice with reply of the appellant and test the same with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/ order. (b) After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion. (c) The ultimate finished judgment/ order should have sustained chronology, regard being had the concept that it has readable, continued interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrived effort on the part of the author. (f) After arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgment at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of three months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society. (g) It should be avoided to give instances, which are likely to cause public agitation or to a particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
