AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the CESTAT clearly demonstrates that the appellant never cleared the goods without payment of duty? B.Whether the Revenue sufficiently discharged their burden to prove that the appellant manufactured and cleared the goods illicitly without payment of Central Excise Duty ? C.Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal is considered as violation of principles of natural justice as the points urged before the learned Tribunal have been disregarded without giving finding on it ?" 2.0. Shri Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the assessee appellant has vehemently submitted that at the time of hearing of the appeal before the learned Tribunal, number of submissions were raised and numbers of decisions were cited, however they have not been dealt with and / or considered by the learned Tribunal. It is the case of the appellantassessee that even subsequently when the ROM was filed pointing out the aforesaid, again the same have not been dealt with and / or considered by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the assessee that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is in violation of principle of natural justice as the points urged before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the order on estimate basis by deleting and/or making addition by observing that to meet with the ends of justice. It cannot be disputed that ITAT, while deciding the appeals, is required to pass the order judiciously and it should reflect that the Tribunal has applied the mind on a particular issue. ITAT is a judicial authority and it should exercise the powers under section 254 of the Act and as per subsection (4) of section 254 save as provided in section 256 or section 260A, orders passed by the appellate tribunal on appeal shall be final. Therefore, a great care should be taken by the ITAT while exercising the powers under section 254 of the Act and while deciding the appeals in exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act. It is true that subsection (1) of section 254 provides that the appellate tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit, but that does not mean that the tribunal is not required to assign any reasons and/or the Tribunal is not required to pass a speaking order. In the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. Collector reported in (2012)4 SCC 407, the Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the rationale behind the requirement of recording reasons in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance. In the case of Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust vs. Union of India reported in (2012)10 SCC 734, in para 22, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: 22. Brevity in judgment writing has not lost its virtue. All long judgments or orders are not great nor are brief orders always bad. What is required of any judicial decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration. A slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one way or the other. The present is a case where it cannot be stated that the Tribunal has followed the well settled position while discharging its duty. The Tribunal has singularly failed in its duty. The order is not only cursory but if one may say so, is not an order at all. In the case of S.J. And S.P.Family Trust vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2005] 277 ITR 557 (Guj) this Court was constrained to observe : Having heard the parties, and in the light of the facts narrated hereinbefore, it is apparent that the Tribunal has made short shrift of its duty to adjudicate. This Court has time and again, reiterated the procedure required to be adopted by the Tribunal so as to ensure that the order, which is an appealable order, reflects not only its conclusion, but the decision making process also. Reasons however brief are the soul and backbone of an order. In the absence of such reasons, which must be reflected on a reading of the order, it is not possible to state as to whether the Tribunal was aware as to what the controversy was before it, and what were the factors pro and con in relation to the said issue, and the reasons which ultimately weighed with the Tribun....