TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant seeking condonation of delay. 1.1. The application is suggestive of the fact that the delay involved is in re-filing the appeal. The period mentioned in the prayer clause is 411 days. 2. Mr Akhil Krishan Maggu, who appears for the applicant/appellant, informs us that the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short 'the Tribunal'] was received by the applicant/appellant, only on 15.03.2018. 2.1. We are told by Mr Maggu that the appeal was filed, in the first instance, on 06.09.2018. In support of his plea that the appeal was filed on 06.09.2018, our attention has been drawn by Mr Maggu to the affidavit filed by him, which is, appended on page 126DD of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Co. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I. 3.1. The coordinate bench, via the aforementioned judgment dated 16.05.2018, has remanded the matters to the Tribunal, for a fresh hearing on merits. 4. Therefore, keeping in mind foregoing aspects, we are of the view that the delay ought to be condoned, as the appeal before us cannot be subjected to a different treatment. 5. We may note that although the coordinate bench had specifically indicated that its judgement would not apply to the appellant as well as to the other appellant i.e., one Mr Suresh Kumar Garg, who has also filed an appeal i.e., CEAC 2/2021, which is, also listed on our board today, that observation will not come in the way of our condoning the delay, as the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et the mandate and requirement of law?" 10. As adverted to above, the coordinate bench set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and while doing so, made the following crucial observations: "8. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the Act i.e. the Central Excise Act, 1940. As a final fact finding authority and the first appellate authority against the order-in-original in the present case, the Tribunal was required to examine the statements, documentary evidence, consider the effect of retraction with reference to the legal position and thereupon arrive at definitive and considered decision. No doubt, as the final fact finding authority, the Tribunal can rely upon the reasoning, findings or inferences given in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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, quasi-judicial an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments....