Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's orders dismissing the appeals were invalid for want of reasons and, if so, whether the matter should be quashed and remitted for fresh disposal.
Analysis: The Tribunal's orders merely referred to earlier decisions and did not disclose the reasons forming the basis of the dismissal. Section 35C(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 contemplates communication of an order that contains reasons, since reasons link the material considered with the conclusion reached and are an essential requirement of natural justice in quasi-judicial adjudication. An order passed without reasons is void in law. In the present case, the impugned orders were conceded to be defective for non-disclosure of reasons, and the appropriate course was to set them aside and require a fresh decision by a reasoned order after hearing the parties.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were invalid for non-disclosure of reasons and were liable to be quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded to the extent that the impugned appellate orders were set aside and the controversy was sent back for reconsideration by the Tribunal through a speaking and reasoned order.
Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial appellate order must disclose reasons; an order that fails to give reasons, where reasons are required by law, is void and liable to be set aside with remand for fresh adjudication.