Reasoned appellate orders are mandatory in quasi-judicial proceedings; a bare order was quashed and remitted for rehearing.

Quasi-judicial proceedings may require cross-examination in appropriate cases under natural justice, but refusal to summon Panchas was not shown to have caused manifest injustice where the petitioner had signed most Panchnamas, so that challenge failed. An appellate authority exercising judicial power must record reasons showing application of mind to the facts and law; a bare order cannot stand. Because the Central Board of Revenue gave no reasons, its appellate order was quashed and the matter was remitted for rehearing according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the Panchas whose signatures appeared on the Panchnamas before the Central Excise authority; (ii) Whether the Central Board of Revenue's appellate order, which gave no reasons, could stand as a valid judicial order.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the Panchas whose signatures appeared on the Panchnamas before the Central Excise authority.

Analysis: The proceedings were quasi-judicial and the principles of natural justice could, in appropriate cases, require opportunity of cross-examination. However, the petitioner had signed most of the Panchnamas and had not shown that the refusal to summon the Panchas caused manifest injustice. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction on this ground.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Board of Revenue's appellate order, which gave no reasons, could stand as a valid judicial order.

Analysis: An appellate authority exercising judicial functions must show on the face of its order that it applied its mind to the facts and law. A bare or sketchy order, especially where the decision is open to Supreme Court review, does not satisfy this requirement. The absence of reasons meant that the appeal had not been properly heard and disposed of according to law.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to denial of cross-examination failed, but the appellate order was quashed and the matter was sent back for rehearing by the Central Board of Revenue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal or appellate authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power must pass a reasoned order showing application of mind to the material and the law; otherwise its decision cannot be sustained.

---