9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : (i) Whether, the Hon'ble CESTAT is legal and correct in holding that the issues and facts covered in both the OIOs namely OIO No. 7/2002, dated 6-5-2002 and OIO No. 1/2005, dated 14-11-2005 are the same? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is right in applying the ratio of the Apex Court's Judgment in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) to the present case, which involved suppression of facts and facts of which were entirely distinguishable? 2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are (hat initially, a show cause notice dated 4-7-2001 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central L to the respondent-assessee which was adjudicated upon and an order Came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed under Section 73 of the Act and it was also directed that interest to be paid under Section 75 of the Act and as well as penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the CESTAT (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal by its order dated 26-6-2006 allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314(S.C.) = 2006 (197) E.L.T 465 (S.C.). The said order of the Tribunal is challenged in this appeal by the Revenue. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-assessee and perused the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue second show-cause notice. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal be fore the Tribunal alleging that there was in fact no suppression of material before the Department and issue of second show cause notice was not valid in the eye of law. However, the Tribunal has not considered these facts nor given any finding as to whether the second show-cause notice is valid in the eye of law, but merely referring to the case of Nizam Sugar Factory and has granted relief to the respondent. We find that the approach of the Tribunal in this particular case has been very cursory. In fact, in a matter like this, if the facts are involved pertaining to suppression of material and second show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority. Therefore, in the absence of a speaking order, Courts would not be able to understand the application of mind to the facts and issues raised in the case. In the case of Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1976 SC 1785), it is reiterated that reasons to be given in support of an order is a basic principle of natural justice, which must inform not only a judicial process but also a quasi judicial process. 8. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the appellate authority must give reasons where it is reversing the order of the lower authority. In the case of C.I.T. v. Walchand & Co. (AIR 1967 SC 1435), the Income Tax Appellate Authority did not agree with the view of the income tax officer, but with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
