2008 (3) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Impugned order shows that a mechanical order was typed out without mentioning date of hearing name of consultant order number held that Appellate Order to meet the judicial scrutiny should be reasoned and speaking clearly demonstrating disputes in question relevant facts for consideration material evidence submissions of both parties reason of decision and the decision - Therefore impugned order neither being speaking nor reasoned is unsustainable matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of reasoning and speaking order in the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Absence of judicial scrutiny in the impugned order.
3. Necessity of passing a reasoned and speaking order by quasi-judicial authorities.
4. Requirement of recording reasons for decisions by administrative authorities.
5. Importance of clarity and minimization of arbitrariness in decision-making process.
6. Judicial review and correction based on reasons provided in the order.
7. Setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for proper hearing.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the lack of reasoning and speaking order in the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the order passed summarily without considering citations and submissions is unsustainable. The impugned order was found to be mechanical, with significant blanks and unsigned portions, indicating a lack of judicial scrutiny.

2. The absence of judicial scrutiny in the impugned order was highlighted during the proceedings. It was observed that the order did not address the issues raised, submissions made, or citations placed before the authority. This lack of scrutiny led to the conclusion that the order was non-speaking and unreasoned, necessitating a review.

3. The judgment emphasized the necessity of passing a reasoned and speaking order by quasi-judicial authorities. Referring to a decision of the High Court, it was stated that every judicial or quasi-judicial body must provide a reasoned order reflecting the application of mind to the issues raised. Failure to do so violates the rules of natural justice and warrants setting aside the order.

4. Furthermore, the requirement of recording reasons for decisions by administrative authorities was underscored as an essential safeguard to ensure observance of the duty to act judicially. This practice introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous considerations, and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision-making process.

5. The importance of clarity and minimization of arbitrariness in the decision-making process was reiterated through various judicial precedents cited during the proceedings. It was emphasized that reasons for decisions are crucial for judicial review and correction, preventing authorities from exceeding their legal limits.

6. Judicial review and correction based on reasons provided in the order were highlighted as integral to the rule of law. The judgment emphasized that courts can effectively exercise their power of review only if the order under challenge contains reasons. Lack of reasons hampers the ability of superior courts to scrutinize and correct decisions.

7. In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper hearing to ensure a reasoned and speaking order. Both parties were granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and the decision was to be based on facts, submissions, citations, and the rule of law, following due process of justice.