TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Service Tax Appeal No. 13146/2013-DB and Miscellaneous Order No. 10189/2024 dated 18.06.2024 passed in Service Tax Miscellaneous (ROM No. 10030/2024) by the CESTAT. The substantial questions of law read as under: "(i) Whether the penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 can be imposed in a case where there is no suppression of facts or willful misstatement with intent to avail wrongful availment of CENVAT credit? (ii) Whether the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Tribunal can be considered as non-speaking order and in violation of principles of natural justice? (iii) Whether penalty under Rule 15 can be imposed for wrongly availment of CENVAT credit which has been reversed on being pointed out by the Revenue in terms of decision of Chandarpur Magnate Wires (P) Ltd Vs. C.E. Ex. - 1996 (81) ELT 3? (iv) Whether the Ld. Tribunal ought to have given the same treatment by remanding the matter to the Adjudication Authority for re-consideration of the issue of penalty as remanded the matter for reconsideration on the issue of penalty imposed for non payment of service tax under GTA?" 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Modh sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity confirming the demand as per the show cause notice. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT, without granting any opportunity of hearing has dismissed the appeal after reproducing the Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in its order and in para 8 of the impugned order the CESTAT has observed: "8. It is a matter of record that the appellant is engaged in processing of cotton bails which is neither manufacturing activity falling within the ambit of Central Excise law nor the output service falling under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. We feel that appellant has wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 38,77,507/- during the period from April 2006 to September 2010. We do not find any legal shortcoming in the order - in - original with regard to confirmation of demand under the provisions of Rule 14 as well as Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 6.5 Being aggrieved, the appellant also preferred a Rectification Application for rectification of mistake in order dated 14.08.2023, which was also disposed of by the CESTAT vide order dated 18.06.2024 by observing as under: "2 We have heard both the sides....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purpose as already noticed, is to make the litigant aware of the reasons for which the relief is declined as well as to help the higher Court in assessing the correctness of the view taken by the High Court while disposing off a matter May be, while dealing wit with the matter at the admission stage even recording of [short reasoning) dealing with the merit of the contentions raised before the High Court may suffice, in contrast, a detailed judgment while matter is being disposed off after final hearing, but in both events, in our view, it is imperative for the High Court to record its own reasoning however short it might be." (2) Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan., reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T 345 (SC). Paragraph 51 of the decision read as under: "51. Summarizing 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 ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process"." (3) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune., reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T 360 (SC). Paragraph 4 of the decision read as under: "4 The Tribunal with one line concluded the matter against the appellant - assessee by observing "while it is not the case of the assessee that the goods were so used". The Tribunal has not recorded a clear finding that the production was not being carried out by the assessee in the workshop situated within the factory or that the goods were being used for repair or maintenance of the machinery installed therein. By cryptic and non-speaking ord....