Speaking and reasoned appellate order required; oral pronouncement alone was not a valid order under Section 35-C.

An oral pronouncement in open court allowing an appeal with the note "order to follow" was not treated as a valid order under Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal reasoned that a Section 35-C order must be the formal expression of the decision and, for a quasi-judicial appellate body, should ordinarily be a speaking and reasoned order. The statutory scheme and Tribunal Rules requiring written, signed and dated orders showed that the operative appellate order must disclose intelligible grounds and reasons. The preliminary objection was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an oral pronouncement in open court allowing the appeal with the remark "order to follow" constituted a valid order under Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that an order under Section 35-C must be the formal expression of a decision and, in the context of a quasi-judicial appellate body, should ordinarily be a speaking and reasoned order. The scheme of the Act and the Tribunal Rules, including the requirement that every order be in writing, signed and dated, indicated that final appellate orders must disclose intelligible grounds and reasons. An oral announcement of the result alone, without dictation or delivery of the reasoned decision, was not treated as the operative order contemplated by the statute.

Conclusion: The oral pronouncement did not amount to a valid order under Section 35-C and the preliminary objection was rejected.

---