TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 26-11-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in placing reliance upon the ratio of the decisions in the case of [1] 2007 (216) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.) in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Man Industries (I) Ltd., [2] 2008 (228) E.L.T. 479 (Tri. - Mumbai) in the case of Metallic Bellows (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), [3] 2007 (216) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.) in the case of Nucleus Satellite Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), [4] 2008 TIOL 982 CESTAT-AHM in the case of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Export L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g substantial question of law arises for consideration : "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in passing an order merely by placing reliance upon various decisions of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court without any discussion on the merits of the case?" 7. Considering the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 8. Mr. R. M. Chhaya, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue has submitted that the Tribunal has, in the impugned order, merely referred to various earlier decisions of the Tribunal without discussing as to how th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Bombay High Court. It has thereafter referred to five judgments, viz. names of parties and citations and has observed that, apart from the said citations, there are many other decisions on the said subject; that as such, they were of the view that refusal by the commissioner to allow conversion was not justified. The Tribunal has thereafter clarified that they are not going into merits of the appellant's (respondent herein) claim of drawback, which shall be decided by the proper officer on merits. That by setting aside the order impugned, they only allow the appellant to file the conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills. The Tribunal accordingly disposed of the appeal in the above terms. This, in sum and substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Apex Court has held thus : "(4) Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peaking, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision by a speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to both the parties. 16. In State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, 2004 (164) E.L.T. 137 (S.C.), the Apex Court was considering a case where the High Court had dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons. The Court held that reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. The Court further hel....