TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication of lis involving a minor demand of duty of ₹ 7,42,297/- would not be productive, is a failure to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on CESTAT, Madras, both of facts and law. In terms of Section 35 b of the Central Excise Act, the appellant is certainly an aggrieved person by the orders impugned before CESTAT, Madras. Dismissal of appeal cannot be approved - matter restored - decided in favor of assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3134 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - S. Manikumar And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. K. V. Subramanian,Sr.Counsel M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associates For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas JUDGMENT ( Order of the Court was made by S. manikumar, J. ) Final order No.40018 of 2017, dated 3/1/2017, on the file of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, reads thus:- Appeal pertains to duty demand of ₹ 7,42,297/-. We do not consider it productive in this appeal to invest time by the Tribunal while there is huge pendency involving crores of rupees of Revenue. Therefore, appeal with a very minor demand of duty levied is dismissed. 2. The above said order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than Rupees two lakhs. However, such appeal cannot be refused if the issue pertains to valuation or rate of duty. Originally the limit was rupees fifty thousand which has been enhanced to Rupees two lakhs, by Finance Act (No.2), 2014, with effect from 6/8/2014. 4.6. The Tribunal has a power to refuse to admit an appeal, at its discretion, if the amount involved (duty or fine or penalty) is not more than Rupees two lakhs. But, this would not be applicable, if the dispute is pertaining to cases other than duty or rate of duty or valuation of goods. Whether the disputed issue before the Tribunal was pertaining to cases other than duty, rate of duty or valuation of goods, and if that be so, whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal under Section 35 B of the Act is the issue to be decided. 4.7. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the dispute before the Tribunal is, with reference to valuation of the goods. When the dispute is with reference to the valuation of the goods, even though the amount of duty involved is not more than Rupees two lakhs, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal. So far as this Court is concerned, when the issue relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See pp. 1878-97, Vol. 4, Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the Report). 15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx . 16. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala [AIR 1961 SC 1669], the question of recording reasons came up for consideration in the context of a refusal by Harinagar to transfer, without giving reasons, shares held by Shyam Sunder. Challenging such refusal, the transferee moved the High Court contending, inter alia, that the refusal is mala fide, arbitrary and capricious. The High Court rejected such pleas and the transferee was asked to file a suit. The transferee filed an appeal to the Central Government under Section 111(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the son of the original transferee filed another application for transfer of his shares which was similarly refused by the Company. On appeal, the Central Government quashed the resolution passed by the Company and directed the Company to reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason is even greater. The learned Judges held that the recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim ensures that the decision is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy but was arrived at after considering the relevant law and that the decision was just. (See SCC p. 768, para 7 : AIR p. 1304, para 7.) 21. In Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India [(1969) 3 SCC 868], the Court, dealing with the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government under the then Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, held that the Central Government was actually exercising judicial power of the State and in exercising judicial power reasons in support of the order must be disclosed on two grounds. The first is that the person aggrieved gets an opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons are erroneous and secondly, the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power (see SCC p. 874, para 11 : AIR pp. 865-66, para 11). 22. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318] this Court while considering an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitutional law, Beg, C.J. in a concurring but different opinion held that an order impounding a passport is a quasi-judicial decision (SCC p. 311, para 34 : AIR p. 612, para 34). The learned Chief Justice also held, when an administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on fundamental rights is taken, the authorities must see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done as well. This principle would obviously demand disclosure of reasons for the decision. 26. Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) in a concurring but a separate opinion in Maneka Gandhi also held that refusal to disclose reasons for impounding a passport is an exercise of an exceptional nature and is to be done very sparingly and only when it is fully justified by the exigencies of an uncommon situation. The learned Judge further held that law cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing so is to keep the reasons away from judicial scrutiny. (See SCC p. 317, para 39 : AIR p. 613, para 39.) 27. In Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram v. State of Kerala [(1979) 4 SCC 782] V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. spea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rules. This Court held that the word consider occurring in Rule 22(2) must mean that the Railway Board shall duly apply its mind and give reasons for its decision. The learned Judges held that the duty to give reason is an incident of the judicial process and emphasised that in discharging quasi-judicial functions the appellate authority must act in accordance with natural justice and give reasons for its decision (SCC pp. 106-07, para 4 : AIR p. 1176, para 4). 33. In Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. [(1990) 3 SCC 280] a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in the present day set-up judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day and the State has to justify its action in various fields of public law. All these necessitate recording of reason for executive actions including the rejection of the highest offer. This Court held that disclosure of reasons in matters of such rejection provides an opportunity for an objective review both by superior administrative heads and for judicial process and opined that such reasons should be communicated unless there are specific justification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons. (AIR pp. 421-22, para 10 of the Report.) 38. About two decades thereafter, a similar question cropped up before this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594]. A unanimous Constitution Bench speaking through S.C. Agrawal, J. confirmed its earlier decision in Som Datt in S.N. Mukherjee case, SCC p. 619, para 47 : AIR para 47 at p. 2000 of the Report and held that reasons are not required to be recorded for an order confirming the finding and sentence recorded by the Court Martial. 39. It must be remembered in this connection that the court martial as a proceeding is sui generis in nature and the Court of Court Martial is different, being called a court of honour and the proceedings therein are slightly different from other proceedings. About the nature of Court Martial and its proceedings the observations of Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents are very pertinent and are extracted hereinbelow: Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, it follows that Courts Martial must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Comma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Board to give succinct reasons, if only to put the mind of Mr Cunningham at rest. I would therefore allow this application. 44. But, however, the present trend of the law has been towards an increasing recognition of the duty of court to give reasons (see North Range Shipping Ltd. v. Seatrans Shipping Corpn. [(2002) 1 WLR 2397). It has been acknowledged that this trend is consistent with the development towards openness in the Government and judicial administration. 45. In English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]. It has been held that justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost. The House of Lords in Cullen v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [(2003) 1 WLR 1763], Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn, on the requirement of reason held: (WLR p. 1769, para 7) 7. First, they impose a discipline which may contribute to such refusals being considered with care. Secondly, reasons encourage transparency Thirdly, they assist the courts in performing their supervisory function if judicial review proceedings are launched. 46. The position in the United States has been ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for 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 David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
