TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and H.N. Devani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.M. Chhaya, for the Appellant. Shri Mihir Joshi, Sr. Advocate for Nanavati Associates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)] . - Since identical question of law has been raised in both these two appeals, the same were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant revenue has challenged order dated 26-11-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in placing reliance upon the ratio of the decisions in the case of [1] 2007 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 577 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.). (2) In view of the aforesaid, issue notice for final disposal returnable on 1st April, 2010. Direct Service is permitted. 4. In response to the notice, the respondents have put in appearance and are represented by Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate. 5. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 6. Admit. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration : Whether the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in passing an order merely by placing reliance upon various decisions of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court without any discussion on the merits of the case? 7. Considering the controversy involved in the present case whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, in the opening part thereof, the Tribunal has merely observed that in the order impugned before it the Commissioner had rejected the request for conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills. The Tribunal has thereafter recorded that it finds that the issue is no longer res integra as settled by various decisions of the Tribunal and upheld by the Bombay High Court. It has thereafter referred to five judgments, viz. names of parties and citations and has observed that, apart from the said citations, there are many other decisions on the said subject; that as such, they were of the view that refusal by the commissioner to allow conversion was not justified. The Tribunal has thereafter clarified that they are not going into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as to in what manner the findings recorded by Commissioner are erroneous or as to why it was required to take a different view. The learned counsel for the appellant is therefore justified in contending that the impugned order of the Tribunal is a non-speaking order. 13. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies (supra), the Apex Court has held thus : (4) Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (Tri. - LB)], without recording any findings of fact. The Apex Court held that it is not sufficient in a judgment to give conclusions alone but it is necessary to give reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The Court, set aside the order of the Tribunal as the findings recorded by the Tribunal were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision by a speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to both the parties. 16. In State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, 2004 (164) E.L.T. 137 (S.C.), the Apex Court was considering a case where the High Court had dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons. The Court held that reasons introduce clarity in an order. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
