Reasoned speaking orders are mandatory in quasi-judicial excise matters; non-speaking rejection of exemption was set aside and remanded.

A quasi-judicial order under excise law was held unsustainable because it was cryptic and non-speaking, with no reasons given for rejecting the exemption claim. The court reiterated that an order made in exercise of quasi-judicial power must disclose reasons and show application of mind; failure to do so vitiates the decision. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision after granting the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether a quasi-judicial order passed under the excise law, without reasons and without explaining why exemption was denied, could be sustained.

Analysis: The order under challenge was found to be cryptic and non-speaking, as it did not disclose any reason for rejecting the claim of exemption. An order made in exercise of quasi-judicial power must contain reasons showing application of mind, and the absence of reasons rendered the decision unsustainable. The matter also required a fresh decision after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the authority for fresh decision after hearing the parties.

---