TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (10) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he question of issuing the show cause notice, proposing to review the order of the Assistant Collector is concerned in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Military Dairy Farm. Accordingly, we allow the stay petition unconditionally. 3. Having regard to the very high stakes involved, we also order the case be listed for early hearing and we fix the case for hearing on 13th April 1992. No other case should be fixed on the day, excepting short matters." 2. The respondent being not satisfied with the stay order had filed a Miscellaneous application for modification of the Stay Order No. 24/92-A, dated 29-1-1992 in the Registry on the 7th day of April 1992 which is registered as Miscellaneous E. 574/92-A. A perusal of the operative part of the stay order No. 24/92-A dated 29-1-1992 which has been reproduced above, shows that the stay was granted unconditionally and the Bench had ordered the listing of the hearing of the appeal on merits on 13-4-1992. On 13-4-1992 when the hearing of the appeal came up for hearing on merits, the Miscellaneous application filed by the respondent (Revenue) on the 7th day of April 1992 was taken up for hearing. A Bench consisting of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CDR regarding issue of order is placed at flag `PUC' for kind perusal and orders of Shri P.C. Jain, M.(T) please". Asst. Registrar, 10-6-1992. Sd./-  Shri P.C. Jain, M (Tech) "There is no need for separate orders on Miscellaneous Application heard on 13-4-1992. It would be taken care of in the final order. No reply to the CDR is called for. M (J)-Ms. S.V. Maruthi may also please see. P.C. Jain, Sd./-                    11-6-1992 M (J-SVM) "May we discuss" S.V. Maruthi, Sd./-                  16-6-1992. Thereafter there were hearings on merits on 24th June, 1992, 25th June, 1992 and 26th June, 1992 at 2.00 PM. For the proper appreciation of the facts, the order sheet notings dated 24th June, 25th June and 26th June, 1992 are reproduced below :- Shri V. Sridharran, learned advocate is on his - "24-6-1992 25-6-1992       legs. c.f. = Sd/- P.C. Jain, 24-6-1992            &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the President is extracted below :- "Since, Ms. S.V. Maruthi has left the Tribunal on her elevation as Judge of A.P. High Court, the matter is released from part-heard. The same will be heard by the regular Bench as constituted on the date of hearing". The Registry vide telegram dated the 27th November, 1992 had informed the parties for the rehearing of the matter on the 27th January, 1993 at 10.15 AM. In between the respondent-Collector of Central Excise had written a letter to the Registrar dated 4/5-1-1993 received in the Registry on the 9th day of January 1993. In the said letter it was mentioned that "However, so far no formal orders have been communicated to this Collectorate even after repeated reminders sent to the CDR, CEGAT, New Delhi". It was further requested that the CEGAT may pass the order and in case no order has been passed there was a request by the respondent-Collector for rehearing of the Miscellaneous application. Thereafter on 20-1-1993 the respondent had presented another Miscellaneous application which was registered as Miscellaneous application No. 55/93-A dated 20-1-1993. In this Miscellaneous application, there was a prayer for rehearing of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....take steps to dispose of the petitioner's application, if possible by the next date of hearing or within another two months". As directed by the Bench the Revenue had filed a copy of the Writ Petition along with other annexures in the Registry on 23-8-1993. The appellants had also filed an affidavit of Shri V. Somasundaram, Manager-Taxation on 25-8-1993 with a covering letter. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 26-8-1993, Shri V. Sridharan had appeared on behalf of the appellants and Smt. Vijay Zutshi, the learned CDR, for the respondent. Shri V. Sridharan had filed a copy of the Miscellaneous application filed by the appellants in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1122/93 and on which the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had passed an order dated 25-8-1993 and had modified its earlier order dated 19-7-1993. For proper appreciation of the facts, the order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Courts is reproduced below :- "At present we do not like to enter into this controversy suffice it to say that we leave it to the Tribunal to decide for itself as to whether any further orders are required to be made on the application dated 7-4-1992. If in the opinion of the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal) Paras 16, 17, 18 and 22. (2) Arunodaya Mills Ltd. etc. v. CC, Ahmedabad reported in 1990 (37) E.L.T. 459 (Tribunal) = 1990 (27) ECR 57 (CEGAT SB-A) (3) Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute and Others reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 2105, Para 14 at page 2108. (4) M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others reported in AIR 1970 SC 1302. She pleaded that in view of these decisions the earlier order dated 13-4-1992 is not an order in the eyes of law and as such the Miscellaneous application filed by the respondent should be reheard. 5. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the assessee pleaded that in the present matter even after 13-4-1992 there was hearing on merits and thereafter on other different dates there has been hearing on merits and as such by implication both the Members have agreed that there was no necessity of issuing of a detailed order and as such there had been hearing on merits and the entries made on the note sheet put up by the Registry do not carry any value. The learned advocate pleaded that the ratio of the decision in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the eyes of law. She argued that judgment cited by the learned advocate do not help him as the facts are different. Decision of Gopal Paper and Board Mills reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 97 (Del.) does not help him as it deals with the Government order passed by Government of India or the Board. 7. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The issue before us is whether the order, dated 13-4-1992 is a valid order in the eyes of law. For the proper appreciation of the facts of the legal position the order sheet entry, dated 13-4-1992 is reproduced below :- "Heard detailed arguments on the Miscellaneous application filed by the department. After hearing both sides, we reject the application. Detailed order would follow. Parties have been directed to proceed with the arguments on appeal". P.C. Jain, 13-4-1992  Sd/-   Ms. S.V. Maruthi, 13-4-1992  Sd/-             "Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate is continuing his arguments. Learned CDR is yet to commence her arguments. To be treated as part-heard C.F. = 24, 25, 26-6-1992 (three days) at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders : Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment, but a copy of the whole judgment, shall be made available for the perusal of the parties or the pleaders immediately after the judgment is pronounced. (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a Short- hand Writer if the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order like `dismissed' or `rejected' will be made without passing a reasoned or a speaking order. It is not, however, necessary that the order disposing of a writ petition or of a cause must be a lengthy one recording in detail all the reasons that played in the mind of the Court in coming to the decision. What is imperative is that the order must in a nutshell record the relevant reasons which were taken into consideration by the Court in coming to is final conclusions and in disposing of the petition or the cause by making the order, thereby enabling both the parties seeking justice as well as the superior Court where an appeal lies to know the mind of the Court as well as the reasons for its finding on questions of law and facts in deciding the said petition or cause. In other words fair play and justice demands that justice must not only be done but must seem to have been done". 8. The learned CDR has referred to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arunodaya Mills Ltd. etc. v. CC, Ahmedabad reported 1988 (37) E.L.T. 459 (Tri.) - 1990 (27) ECR 57 (CEGAT SB-A). Relevant paras 8 to 17 from the judgment are extracted below :- ***** 9. The learned CDR has cited an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... No doubt in practice Judges do so comply, as it is their duty to do. But accidents may happen. A Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it. The Court must have inherent jurisdiction to supply such a defect. The case of a Judge who has gone on leave before signing judgment may call for more comment, but even so the convenience of the Court and the interest of litigants must prevail. The defect is merely an irregularity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court and is no ground for setting aside the decrees". 11. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Hanna Estelle Dear Christian v. Colin MacGregor Dear Murray reported in AIR 1933 Patna 135 has held as under :- "That your petitioners have come to a settlement of all matters in question in these suits in terms of their letter to Mr. K.M.M. Leslie, dated 6th December, 1929, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and that your petitioners desire that these suits be recorded as compromised on the terms and conditions contained in the said letter. Your petitioners therefore pray that a compromise be recorded accordingly, And your petitioners shall ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement of the judgment, assuming that there was such a pronouncement, therefore, has not the effect of converting the draft judgment into the judgment of the court to which finality was attached. 7. True it is that some corrections are found made in ink in the first few pages of the draft judgment. Even assuming that the learned Additional District Judge had performed such an act, that would not convert the draft judgment into a final judgment. It is the signature, which the learned Additional District Judge was required to append at the appropriate place in the judgment, which would render it final and complete and not the corrections made in a few pages of the draft judgment. It cannot be overlooked in this connection that the corrections are found made only in a few pages of the draft judgment and that the remaining pages of the judgment do not have any corrections. It may be because the learned Additional District Judge might have found that no such corrections were necessary or may be because he had no time to go through the remaining pages of the draft judgment. Be that as it may, the indication from the circumstance of not appending the signature to the judgment under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot matter. In some Courts the judgment is delivered orally or read out, in some only the operative portion is pronounced, in some the judgment is merely signed after giving notice to the parties and laying the draft on the table for a given number of days for inspection. 11. An important point therefore arises. It is evident that the decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the Court as it is at the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the mode or manner of delivery as that is not of the essence, except to say that it must be done in a judicial way in open Court. But, however it is done it must be an expression of the mind of the Court at the time of delivery. We say this because that is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the Court performs after the hearing. Everything else up till then is done out of Court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. Judges may, and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgments either,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar to this were expressed by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of nine Judges in the year 1867 in - `Mahomed Akil v. Asadunnissa Bibee', 9 WR 1 (FB) (B). In that case, three of the seven Judges who constituted the Bench handed in signed judgments to the Registrar of the Court. Before the judgment could be delivered, two of them retired and one died. A Full Bench of nine Judges was convened to consider whether the drafts of those three Judges could be accepted as Judgments of the Court. Seton-Kerr, J. who had heard the case along with them, said - "Certainly as far as I can recollect, they appeared to have fully made up their minds on a subject, which they had very seriously considered, and on which they had had abundant opportunities of forming a final determination. I am, however, not prepared to say that they might not on further consideration have changed their opinions........" (P. 13). Despite this, all nine Judges were unanimous in holding that those three opinions could not be regarded as judgments in the formal sense of the term. In our opinion, Jackson, J. expressed the law aright in these words : "I have however always understood that it was necessar....