2021 (6) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant that competent authority has not allowed the conversion of free shipping bills to drawback scheme as requested by them. Aggrieved by the said communications/ orders, they preferred the present appeals. 2. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant exported Synthetic Organic Tanning Substance against free shipping bills for export during the relevant period. Most of these exports have been done from the CFS Mulund and they have realized the export proceeds from the buyer and converted bank certificate of export and realization to the Joint DGFT. It is his contention that at the time of export, they were not aware that drawback on the said items were admissible to them. When they realized....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....drawback claim shipping Bill. Needless to mention this has resulted in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Also in absence of reasoning while passing the order, affecting the rights of the parties, it would be difficult for appellate Court to read the minds of the adjudicating authority in deciding the issues raised in the appeal. Needless to mention reasoning is the heart and soul of an order or judgment. Summarizing the precedents on the issue of necessity of reasoning in a judgment/order, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Masod Ahmed Khan - 2011 (273) ELT 345(SC) observed as follows: "51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds : (a) In India the judicial trend h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non o....