Speaking order requirement and pending revision jurisdiction were upheld in a remand for fresh reconsideration.

A non-speaking Collector's order refusing revision without reasons was unsustainable and liable to be set aside, because a quasi-judicial decision must disclose the basis for rejecting relief. Pending revision proceedings initiated under the pre-1982 amendment could also continue after the appointed day, since the statutory scheme preserved jurisdiction to complete such matters and decide them afresh according to law. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration, and the pre-amendment revisional proceeding was treated as maintainable for completion by the Collector.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector's order, being unreasoned and without discussion, could be sustained; (ii) Whether proceedings initiated under the revision provision as it stood before the 1982 amendment could continue before the Collector after the appointed day and be disposed of on remand.

Issue (i): Whether the Collector's order, being unreasoned and without discussion, could be sustained.

Analysis: The impugned communication contained no reasons and no discussion showing why the Collector declined to interfere with the Assistant Collector's order. An order that merely conveys refusal to revise, without disclosing the basis of decision, is a non-speaking order and cannot stand judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion: The order was unsustainable and had to be set aside, with remand for reconsideration.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings initiated under the revision provision as it stood before the 1982 amendment could continue before the Collector after the appointed day and be disposed of on remand.

Analysis: The appellate scheme under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 preserved the remedy of appeal in respect of orders passed by the Collector under Section 35A as it stood before the appointed day. This indicated that revision proceedings already initiated before the appointed day could be continued and concluded by the Collector notwithstanding the later amendment removing such revisional power for future cases.

Conclusion: The Collector retained jurisdiction to complete the pending revision proceeding and decide it afresh according to law.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after setting aside the unreasoned rejection, and the pre-amendment revisional proceeding was held maintainable for completion by the Collector.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking administrative or quasi-judicial order rejecting relief without reasons is liable to be set aside, and pending revision proceedings may continue under the pre-amendment regime where the statutory scheme preserves such jurisdiction.

---