2021 (3) TMI 698 - HC - Central Excise

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Must Provide Detailed Reasons; Order Set Aside for Lack of Adequate Explanation.

The HC set aside the CESTAT's order, finding it lacked adequate reasoning and failed to address the appellant's contentions. The HC emphasized the ... Principles of natural Justice - the order of Appellate Tribunal passed without dealing with any of the submissions made by the appellant - overriding effect of Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - validity of relying on the decision in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills [2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- It is well settled in law that even quasi-judicial authority, while exercising its statutory powers, has to assign reasons and based on the reasons assigned by it, has to record the findings. In other words, the Tribunal exercising the statutory power under the Act is required to apply its mind and record the findings. In any case, if the Tribunal relies on a particular decision, it is duty bound to examine, by assigning reasons, as to how the ratio of the aforesaid decision applies to the fact situation of the case. It is evident that the Tribunal has merely relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DOABA STEEL ROLLING MILLS and has not even assigned any reason as to how the decision applies to the fact situation of the case - Thus, it is found that the order passed by the Tribunal is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after considering the submissions made at the Bar and to decide the matter by a speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order without addressing the appellant's submissions is legally flawed.3. Tribunal's reliance on a specific case and the interpretation of conflicting provisions of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing hot rerolled steel products, filed an appeal against the Tribunal's order dated 27.06.2017. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order lacked reasoning and failed to address their contentions adequately. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Tribunal correctly relied on a decision of the High Court of Madras, which favored the Revenue. The High Court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for their decisions and analyze how legal precedents apply to the case at hand.2. The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of central excise duty based on the actual production of rerolled steel products rather than the capacity determined by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on its reliance on a Supreme Court decision involving a similar issue. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's order was inadequate as it did not explain how the Supreme Court decision applied to the facts of this case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, instructing the Tribunal to provide a detailed reasoning in its decision within three months.3. The High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of thorough reasoning in judicial decisions, especially when relying on legal precedents. By quashing the Tribunal's order and directing a fresh adjudication, the High Court ensured that all arguments presented by the parties would be considered in detail, maintaining the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication. The High Court's decision aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal process and provide a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case effectively.