9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... virtually a part of “Due Process”.” The order impugned in this appeal does not contain any reason, much less, justifiable reasons in support of the conclusion. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the CESTAT. In the result, the order dated 28-10-2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. The CESTAT is directed to decide the matter on merits and as per law, as expeditiously as possible. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT without a reasoned Order, dismissed the appeal. It is the said order which is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. The learned senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appeal before the CESTAT was a statutory appeal and as such, the CESTAT was expected to decide the matter objectively. However, the CESTAT did not advert to the basic facts and rejected the appeal by way of a non-speaking order. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Kwality Fun Foods & Restaurant P. Ltd., reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) in support of his contention. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent justified the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oimbatore v. Kwality Fun Foods & Restaurant P. Ltd., reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.), the issue before the Supreme Court was relating to Section 4(4)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and having found that the Tribunal has not given any reason in support of the order, the Supreme Court set aside the order and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 10. In M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others [2010 (5) SCALE 199 = 2011 (273) E.L.T. 345 (S.C.)], Supreme Court observed that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of the parties must speak. The Supreme Court, after considering the earlier decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
