TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the second respondent is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by issuing an order mentioning that they do not consider it productive to invest time by the Tribunal while there is huge pendency involving crores of rupees and revenue and therefore, this appeal with minor demand of duty levied?" 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that he has been instructed by the Department to enter appearance. Considering the nature of order, we directed Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Central Excise - I, present in Court, to take notice. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is finally heard. 5. Attention of this Court was also invited to a decision of this Court in Roots Multiclean Ltd., Vs. CESTAT, Chennai, reported in 2016 (336) E.L.T.25 (Mad.), wherein after considering the statutory provisions, Section 35 (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, at paragraph Nos.4.3, 4.4, 4.6 and 4.7 held as follows:- "4.3 A perusal of Section 35 B of the Act would go to show that sub-section (i) specifies orders against which appeal lies to the Appellate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....standing the provisions of Section 35 B of the Act, the Tribunal has chosen to dismiss the appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed." 6. On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision. Dismissal of the appeal, without adverting to the facts, grounds of appeal is also not appreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference can be made to few decisions. 7. In M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court testing the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the assessment, at Paragraph 10, held as follows: "10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless." 8. In Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs Masood Ahamed Khan and Others) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a catena of decisions, which are extracted hereunder: 12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a tribunal and is amenable to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court. 18. Even though in Harinagar the decision was administrative, this Court insisted on the requirement of recording reason and further held that in exercising appellate powers, the Central Government acted as a tribunal in exercising judicial powers of the State and such exercise is subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court. Such powers, this Court held, cannot be effectively exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of the order (AIR pp. 1678-79, para 23). 19. Again in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1606] the Constitution Bench of this Court examined the question whether the Central Government was bound to pass a speaking order while dismissing a revision and confirming the order of the State Government in the context of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and having regard to the provision of Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules. The Constitution Bench held that in exercising its power of revision under the aforesaid Rule the Central Government acts in a quasi-judicial capacity (see AIR p. 1610, para 8). Where the State Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that such awards are subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong (see SCC pp. 320-21, para 5 : AIR p. 2761, para 5). 23. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor [(1973) 2 SCC 836] this Court while dealing with the question of selection under the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations held that the expression reasons for the proposed supersession should not be mere rubber-stamp reasons. Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made (see SCC p. 788, para 14 : AIR p. 1922, para 14). 28. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368] this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor, held that rubber-stamp reason is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor to the extent that: (Capoor case, SCC p. 854, para 28) "28. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. (See AIR p. 377, para 18.) 29. In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt. [(1979) 4 SCC 642]. while giving the majority judgment Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. referred to (SCC p. 658, para 29) Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edn., p. 97) where the principle in Latin runs as follows: "Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex." 30. The English version of the said principle given by the Chief Justice is that: (H.H. Shri Swamiji case, SCC p. 658, para 29) "29. reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself . (See ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disputed necessarily the authority or the enquiry officer, on consideration of the materials on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached (see SCC pp. 738-39, para 22). 35. In M.L. Jaggi v. MTNL [(1996) 3 SCC 119], this Court dealt with an award under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act and held that since the said award affects public interest, reasons must be recorded in the award. It was also held that such reasons are to be recorded so that it enables the High Court to exercise its power of judicial review on the validity of the award. (See SCC p. 123, para 8.) 36. In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital [(2000) 7 SCC 668] a three-Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with a grievance under the CP Act, held that the authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should arrive at conclusions based on reasons. This Court held that the said Act, being one of the benevolent pieces of legislation, is intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation as the said Act provides for an alternative mode for consumer justice by the process of a summary trial.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon law duty of recording of reasons. In Stefan v. General Medical Council [(1999) 1 WLR 1293 (PC) it has been held: (WLR p. 1300) the established position of the common law is that there is no general duty imposed on our decision makers to record reasons. It has been acknowledged in the Justice Report, Administration Under Law (1971) at p. 23 that: "No single factor has inhibited the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of any general obligation upon public authorities to give reasons for their decisions." 42. Even then in R. v. Civil Service Appeal Board, ex p Cunningham [(1991) 4 All ER 310 (CA), Lord Donaldson, Master of Rolls, opined very strongly in favour of disclosing of reasons in a case where the Court is acting in its discretion. The learned Master of Rolls said: (All ER p. 317) "it is a corollary of the discretion conferred upon the Board that it is their duty to set out their reasoning in sufficient form to show the principles on which they have proceeded. Adopting Lord Lane, C.J.'s observations [in R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Khan (Mahmud) [1983 (2) ALL ER 420 (CA)] All ER at p. 423, QB at pp. 794-95], the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of the considerations underlying the action under review . In S.N. Mukherjee this Court relied on the decisions of the US Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn. [87 L Ed. 626] and Dunlop v. Bachowski [44 L Ed 2d 377] in support of its opinion discussed above. 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, qua....