TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order of the Court was delivered by S. Manikumar, J ) Though Final Order made in No.40386 of 2017 dated 01.03.2017 on the file of CESTAT, Chennai, is challenged on many substantial questions of law, we are not inclined to delve into the same. But, going through the order, we are of the view that after extracting the submissions, CESTAT, Chennai, dismissed the appeal, by a non speaking order. At ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. Vs. CEGAT, Chennai - 2010 (260) ELT 511 (Mad.). We are also conscious that any grant of relief to the evader shall be a bonus to him following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Vs. International Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 68 (H.P.)." 2. The tribunal is a final fact finding authority. Though the tribunal has considered the grounds of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, discuss the evidence, and then to dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. (ii) In Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, whereby, a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, by applying the ratio of the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Karnataka High Court, at Paragraph 5, held as follows: "After careful perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest on the face of the order that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in passing the order impugned without assigning any valid reasons and without any discussion. By merely following the order passed in similar matters, it has proceeded to pass the impugned order, allowing th....