TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel appearing with Mr. Pinakin N. Patel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.28680 of 2007, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta with Mr. Hardik P. Modh for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.4896 to 4900 of 2008 & Special Civil Application No.6127 of 2008. 2. The present group of petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Customs & Central Excise, Mumbai imposing the penalty as specified in respective orders in each of these petitions, interalia, on the ground narrated in detail in the memo of the petitions. 3. Learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners in these group of petitions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has adopted the submissions made by Mr. M.R. Bhatt. He has referred to paragraph 10 of the order of the Settlement Commission in Settlement Application No.430/CEX/GMD/2007-SC(MB) in case of M/s. Mardia Tubes Limited and pointed out that before issuance of the show-cause notice, the disclosure was made and it was settled by the Commission and, therefore, in paragraph 10 of the order, the Settlement Commission has observed that "the said amount is allowed to be adjusted against the admitted duty liability. The Bench further takes note of the fact that the applicant has made true and full disclosure of its duty liability and has cooperated in the proceedings before the Bench. The Bench, therefore, lays down following conditions under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s considered the contentions raised by both the parties. The applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,34,87,505/which is the duty demanded in the show cause notice. The Bench further takes note of the fact that the applicant has made a true and full disclosure of its duty liability and has cooperated in the proceedings before the Bench. However, as this is a case of deliberate diversion of imported goods in violation of Notification No.21/02Cus dated 01.03.2002 read with Notification No.22/2004 Cus dated 16.01.2004 and the Bonds executed, the goods are liable to confiscation and the applicants are liable to pay a redemption fine. Fine A redemption fine of Rs. 20 Lac is imposed in lieu of confiscation. Penalty Penalty of Rs. 2 Lacs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt should not interfere with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It was strenuously submitted that since it is the discretion of the authority which has been exercised by the competent authority i.e. the Settlement Commission. It was submitted that this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under the writ jurisdiction would not entertain such petition and the petition may be dismissed. 9. In view of these rival submissions and considering the various case law to which our attention has been invited, particularly, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Bhag Singh, 2004 (164) ELT 137 (S.C.) emphasizing the need for reasons and failure to give reason would make the order illegal. Learned Counsels appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aragraph 10 as under: 10. 5 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, The absence of reasons has rendered the [High Court judgment] not sustainable. 12.6. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen V/s. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed :( All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.' The Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V/s. Crabtree it was observed 'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is well settled that even if the orders passed by the quasi judicial authority or the administrative authorities, if are lacking in the relevant principles like principles of natural justice or fairness, then the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Even if the statute may not specify but for the purpose of ultimate ends of justice and the fairness, the High Court may have to interfere with such an order. Therefore, when the order is without any reason or is laconic or has failed to observe, the bare principles of natural justice, it is required to be set aside. Therefore, the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel Ms. Ami Yajnik on this count cannot be accepted. 15.Ther....