9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. [Judgment per: Abhilasha Kumari J.] - The appellant-Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the composite order dated 6.7.2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal") in Appeal No.E/913-914/2006. The Tribunal was hearing appeals preferred by the Unit and the Director and a consolidated order was passed. Being aggrieved by the direction contained in the order of the Tribunal whereby the penalty imposed upon the Director has been set aside, the Revenue has come before us in appeal against this part of the order of the Tribunal. 2. The following substantial question of law has been proposed by the Revenue: (a) Whether, in the facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri K. J. Vyas appearing for the appellant is not contesting the demand of duty of Rs.91680/- confirmed on the ground that the appellant has cleared their final product without payment of duty. Further penalty of Rs.50,000/- stands imposed upon the manufacturing unit along with imposition of identical penalty under Section 11AC. In addition, penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed upon the director. 2. Inasmuch as, a part amount of duty was deposited by the appellant, I reduce the penalty under Section 11AC to Rs.25,000/- and under Rule-25 to Rs.25,000/-. Penalty on the Director is set aside. Appeal is disposed off in the above terms. (Pronounced in Court) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial)" 7. So far as the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as parties, i.e. the assessee as well as the Revenue are concerned and it is, therefore, essential that the order made by the Tribunal should reflect an application of mind before fastening of liability upon an assessee or granting relief against the Revenue. 9. The legal position in this regard is, by now well-settled. The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities when exercising jurisdiction is imperative, in order to avoid any element of arbitrariness or unfairness which may attach to unreasoned conclusions. The Tribunal is a quasi-judicial forum and while deciding matters, it has to bear in mind that a speaking order is required to be passed as it is adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. [JT 1987 (1) SC 388; 1987 (2) SCC 222]. Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution'). 8. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. [JT 2003 (Suppl.2) SC 354]). 9. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons by the Tribunal. In Tax Appeal No.81 of 2005 - Jay Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise decided on 4.5.2005, this Court has summed up the legal position in the following terms: "It is necessary for CEGAT to assign reasons while disposing of an appeal before it. Reasons are the soul of the proceedings including the order of CEGAT and in absence of the same the order remains merely a shell without any substance. It is not necessary that CEGAT pass an elaborate order, but at the same time the body of the order must reflect that CEGAT is aware of the aforestated legal position and the order, when read as a whole, must reflect application of mind. It is for this purpose that reasons are required to be assigned, howsoever bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) are not disputed. In fact, the principal grievance on behalf of the petitioner is that none of its submissions have been taken into consideration. 8. There is one more reason why CESTAT is required to give reasons after recording findings while passing an order. The said order is amenable to statutory appeal. How does the High Court, which is an appellate authority under the statute, appreciate the correctness or otherwise of an order made by CESTAT in absence of any reason in the order made by CESTAT. For this reason also the impugned order cannot be permitted to stand." The above are just a few extracts from relevant judgments elaborating upon the settled legal position which is no longer res integra. No doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
