TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee. - CEA No. 50 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 25-2-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal and Anita Chaudhry, JJ. Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee-appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 28-8-2012, Annexure A-7 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal ) in Appeal No. E/2711/2007-SM, claiming following substantial questions of law :- (a) Whether the learned Tribunal has passed non speaking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period 2000-2001. During the course of audit of the accounts, the officers noticed that the appellant had shown a closing stock of 21,354 nos. of Filters whereas in the balance sheet in their RT-12 returns for the month of March 2001, they had shown a closing balance of 11,014 numbers of Filters. The respondent opined that the appellant had suppressed production of 10,340 numbers of Filters and cleared the same without payment of duty. The respondent assessed value of 10,340 numbers of Filters at ₹ 11,22,667/- and calculated demand of duty amounting to ₹ 1,79,563/-. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 26-10-2004, Annexure A-3 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why Central Excise duty along with penalty and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee-appellant. 6. The Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 = 2011 (273) E.L.T. 345 (S.C.) while dealing with the requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial, had laid down 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 sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether 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. 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 Dav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid quantity remained unexplained before the audit, adjudication or at first appellate stage, there is no scope to intervene in the appellate order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Therefore, the order dated 28-8-2012, does not satisfy the requirements as enunciated by the Apex Court noticed herein above. Thus, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 8. Consequently, after setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28-8-2012, Annexure A-7, which is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as per the law laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
