TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T to indicate the details of documents and its link and the contemporaneous nature in the order under appeal. Therefore we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal without any kind of indication about the details of contemporaneous documents - Even according to the exporter, only few documents were submitted before the Commissioner of Customs. The so called voluminous documents were produced for the first time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Commissioner was not having the benefit of verifying those documents. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Commissioner - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C.M.A. No. 87 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2011 - D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ. Shri Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, for the Appellant. Shri Joseph Prabakar, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Customs challenges the order dated 15 April, 2009 in Final Order No. 497 of 2009 [2009 (242) E.L.T. 442 (Tribunal)] on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company along with the Counsel have to travel from Chennai to Bombay for the purpose of attending the hearing. The learned counsel very fairly submitted that the transfer was made without notice to the Commissioner of Customs. The transfer was made notwithstanding the fact that the exporter was having their full fledged office at Bombay. In short, the appeal was transferred to the Tribunal at Chennai only at the instance of the exporter and that too, by way of an Administrative order passed by the President of the Appellate Tribunal at Delhi. 5. The CESTAT, Chennai, appears to have considered the contemporaneous documents stated to have been produced by the exporter in the paper book. However, without indicating as to how those documents would prove the contemporaneous nature of the transaction, the CESTAT arrived at a finding that the contemporaneous documents which were in existence at the time when the goods were exported justified the request for amendment of documents. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the request of the exporter for conversion of duty free shipping bills into DEEC was granted. It is the said order which is impugned in this Civil Miscellaneous A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der seventeen duty free shipping bills. They have not made any application at the earliest point of time for the purpose of conversion. It was only on 6 January, 2005 the exporter made an application before the Department seeking conversion of seventeen duty free shipping bills into DEEC shipping bills against three advance licences. The exporter justified the belated application on the ground that non-indication of advance licence on the shipping bills was only a bona fide omission on their part and it was detected only at a later point of time. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the request. The order was taken up before CESTAT. The CESTAT having found that the request of the exporter was rejected principally on the basis of a circular issued by the Department, wanted the Commissioner to decide the matter in accordance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. 9. The application submitted by the exporter for conversion was considered on merits consequent to the order passed by the CESTAT dated 29 May, 2006. 10. The order passed by the Commissioner does not contain clear indication regarding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents produced in the appeal paper book and as to how pages 55, 58, 60, 63 and 64 would amount to contemporaneous documents within the meaning of Section 149 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal being the final forum of facts should have considered the documents. The order should contain a factual finding supported by reasons. It is all the more necessary, in a case of this nature, in view of the non-submission of said voluminous documents before the Commissioner. 14. It was not the case of the exporter before CESTAT that the entire documents were produced before the Commissioner and none of those documents were considered. Therefore, the so called contemporaneous documents were produced for the first time before CESTAT. It is true that few documents were produced before the Commissioner of Customs and there is a reference about those documents in paragraph 16 of the order. The Statute : 15. Section 149 of the Customs Act deals with amendment of documents, which reads thus : 149. Amendment of documents. - Save as otherwise provided in Sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the custom house to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the imported products and the export products. However only five bills were referred to in the order. Even with respect to those five bills, nothing was indicated as to how those bills would prove the link. The Tribunal was not correct in indicating the page numbers in the order without discussing the details of the link documents, its contemporaneous nature and the link it establishes between the imported products and the export products. 20. In fact the very same exporter has earlier filed four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the order passed by CESTAT on the ground that the order does not contain reasons in support of the finding. We have allowed those appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 1585 to 1588 of 2011 as per order dated 30 June, 2011 and directed CESTAT to consider the matter afresh. 21. In C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Kwality Fun Foods Restaurant P. Ltd. [2010 (259) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)], the issue before the Supreme Court was relating to Section 4(4)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and having found that the Tribunal has not given any reason in support of the order, the Supreme Court set aside the order and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (emphasis supplied) m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. [See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (2987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737]. 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 (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 juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
