9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 1994; (b) I order recovery of interest, on the amount confirmed above at Sr. No. (a), from the due date of payment of such short paid amount under the provision of Rule 6(3A)(e) read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (c) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,65,06,027/- (Rs. Ten Crore Sixty Five Lakhs Six Thousand Twenty Seven only), on M/s Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd., under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as applicable for the relevant period, read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the Service Tax and interest, as determined in this order, is paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order then the penalty payable shall be 25% of the Service Tax amount determined as payable, provided the penalty amount is also paid within 30 days of the date of receipt of the Order. (ii) SCN F. No. ST-VII/Dn-1/Gr-11I/Audit/Dow Chem/2015 dated 07.04.2015 amounting to Rs. 1,14,81,987/ (a) Thereby confirm amount of demand of Rs. 1,14,81,987/- (Rs. One Crore Fourteen Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eighty Seven only), on M/s Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order then the penalty payable shall be 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 76 ibid, provided the penalty amount is also paid within 30 days of the receipt of the Order. (d) impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), on M/s Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd., under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for their failure to file the prescribed returns correctly a required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2.1. Appellant has several manufacturing units located across India. The factories of the Appellant are separately registered under Central Excise and regularly filing excise returns. They are also provider of output services for which they have taken centralized registration. Details of the activities undertaken by the appellant at various premises are as indicated below: Sr No Unit Activity Credit availment for eligible input services 1 Kalwa Factory Unit Manufacturing Full credit availed 2 Chennai unit Provision of services (export) Full credit availed 3 Powai unit Provision of services (export) Full credit availed 4 Warehouses Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dated 23.5.2014 was issued to the Appellant proposing recovery of Rs. 10,65,06,027/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest and penalty under section 78. 2.6. Two more show cause notices dated 7.4.2015 and 15.4.2016 were issued determining the Cenvat credit to be reversed as follows: Sr No Particulars 2013-2014 2014-2015 A Sale of Traded goods 1109,39,95,371/- 1162,29,47,2721 B Purchase of Traded goods 970,48,70,734/- 940,20,36,712/ C. Profit on sale of Traded goods 138,91,24,637/- 222,09,10,560/- D 10% of Sale of traded goods (A) 110,93,99,537/- 116,22,94,727/- E Exempted Turnover whichever is higher of C or D 138,91,24,637/- 22,09,10,560/ F TOTAL TURNOVER 861,44,42,452/- 987,97,72,255/- G % age of reversal of Proportionate basis as per rule 6(3A) (E/F%) 16.13% 22.48% H Total Cenvat Credit taken on input Services 21,71,12,033/- 38,27,63,872/ I % age of reversal of proportionate basis as per Rule 6(3A) (H * G%) 3,50,20,171/- 8,60,45,318/- J Amount already reversed 2,35,38,184/- 4,81,08,335/ K. Difference (I-J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiable goods. If the interpretation of the Revenue is accepted, then the Cenvat credit of part of input service even though used in manufacture of dutiable goods/provision of taxable output services, shall stand disallowed, which is not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Credit Rules. * The aforesaid principle has been also reiterated by the Board under its Circular No. 754/70/2003-CX dated 09.10.2003 [pg. 62/ of case compilation) that no credit should be taken on inputs which are used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products. * Rule 6, Rule 6(3A) of the Credit Rules was amended vide Notification No. 13/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016, by substituting Rule 6(3A) (b)(ii) of the Credit Rules, to consider only common input services and not total input service credit, for the purpose of computing the amount of reversal. * This view has been held in the following decisions:- * Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 784 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] * Honda Cars India Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 523 - CESTAT CHENNAI] * E-Connect Solutions (P.) Ltd. [2021 (376) E.L.T. 678 (T - Del.)] * EID Parry India Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 32 - CESTAT Bangalore] (p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 will be 16.55% and not 21.47%. as determined by the revenue. * The provisions of Rule 6(3) regarding reversal of CENVAT credit is not applicable at the end of ISD and the same are applicable at the end of recipient receiving such credit.Reliance is placed on CBEC Circular No. 868/6/2008-CX dated 9 May 2008 pg 63 of case law compilation wherein the board has issued clarifications. In question no 5 of the said circular, the board has explicitly mentioned that since ISD does not provide any service, the question of availing either option (1) or option (2) under Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules does not arise. * The impugned order has computed the demand of Cenvat credit reversal by considering the credit availed by the Centralized registration and the credit reported by the ISD for further distribution. * CBEC vide letter F. No. 137/68/20 13-S.T. dated 10.03.2014 has clarified that "Since there is no other provision for recovery, it is evident that recovery can be made only from the manufacturer or service provider. There is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to issue SCNs to ISD's." * In case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd [ 2017-TIOL-2364- CESTAT-Mumbai] it has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the appellant vide their letter dated 20.12.2016, and received by the adjudicating authority on 12.01.2017 are reproduced below: We, Dow Chemical International Private Limited ('DCIPL' or 'the Company refer to the captioned letter for Personal Hearing (*PH') granted to us. Firstly, we would like to thank you for granting us the PH in relation to our reply to the captioned Show Cause Notices (SCNs). The SCNs issued proposed to levy service tax of Rs. 10.65.06.027 for the period 2008-09. 2011-12 and 2012-13. Rs. 1,14,81,987 for the period 2013-14 and Rs. 3,79,36,983 for the year 2014-15 alleging that the company has provided exempted services and since no separate books of accounts as required as per provisions of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CENVAT Rules") are maintained, the company has not reversed the credit as required under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT rules on common input services availed for providing taxable and exempted services. In regards to the above allegations, we would like to make submissions in respect Whitening to the SCNs to support our argument which are without prejudice to each other as under: Statement of facts 1 The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y would like to submit that the centralized registration and ISD registration obtained by the Company are two separate registrations. Section 69 of the Finance Act 1994 requires every person liable to pay service tax, to be registered with the Central Excise and accordingly centralized registration has been obtained. Centralized registration is to be obtained by the Company for availing of input credit and payment of liability on output services. 9 The ISD neither manufactures the goods nor provides the service and thus there is no question of it being liable to pay any excise duty or service tax. It only receives and distributes the input credit. However, for the purpose of distribution of credit to its units the ISD has to obtain registration under service tax. Registration by an ISD is governed by the Notification no. 27/2005 dated 7 June 2005 wherein it is mentioned that ISD must apply for registration with the jurisdictional excise office. 10 Thus, all the provisions of CENVAT Rules including Rule 6(3) relating to Reversal of CENVAT credit has to be looked into separately with respect to each of the registration i.e. the centralized registration as well as the IS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done on the unit to whom the credit has been distributed. 15 Further, since ISD is neither a manufacturer nor a service provider, there is no question of ISD being liable to pay any excise duty or service tax. Therefore, there is no question of assessment or self-assessment by ISD. There is no rule in service tax law which provides assessment or self-assessment by ISD 16 In this regard, the company would also like to submit that the issue about the jurisdiction to issue SCN to ISD has already been clarified by CBEC vide letter F.No.137/68/2013-S.T. dated 10/03/2014. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below: "Attention is drawn to Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which stipulate that, where the cenvat credit has been taken and utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of Section 11A and 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 73 and 75 of the Finance Act shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries. Since there is no other provision for recovery, it is evident that recover can be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lwa which has been reported under ISD registration would lead to duplication of demand and therefore amount reported under ISD registration and covered under the impugned SCN needs to be dropped. Amounts mentioned in the SCN for the period 2008-09 and 2012-13 is incorrect 21 The company would like to submit that the amounts mentioned in the SCN for the period 2008-09 and 2012-13 is incorrect and accordingly the authorities have erred in calculating the amount of reversals to be made under Rule 6(3). The correct amounts which should be taken under consideration are as follows: Submissions for 2008-09: a. Incorrect calculation of amount taken as credit on input services 22 The company submits that the authority has also erroneously calculated the total cenvat credit availed on input services for FY 12-13. In the impugned SCN, it has been alleged that the company has availed total cenvat credit on input service of Rs. 29,32,66,892. However, the company would like to submit that it has availed credit on input services only to the tune of Rs. 19,70,14.028 (ie. Rs. 10,18,44,194 under centralised registration and Rs. 9.51,69,834 under ISD registration.) 23 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the credit availed by the company under the said rule is not fully pertaining to manufacture of exempted goods / services, it is eligible to avail full credit in respect of such services. 28 However, in the impugned SCN, the authority has applied ratio of reversal on the said services as well which is in correct as per the provisions of the law. Submissions for 2012-13: a. Incorrect calculation of ratio for reversal of credit 29 The company would like to bring to your notice that the authority has erred in taking out the percentages of the reversal made during the year 2012-13. 30 For the purpose of calculation the profit on sale of traded goods, the department has considered the Sale price (-) Purchase price of traded goods and accordingly derived the value of exempted turnover. It is important to note that as per the applicable provisions, we are required to deduct Cost of goods sold from the Sale price and not the purchase price of goods. The amount of Purchase of traded goods would not be comparable and correct to deduct from Sale price since the quantity of goods purchased for the financial year would be different from the quantity of goods sold durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t register for centralized registration for each year providing details based on the location wise credit availed is provided hereunder : FY 2008-09 Unit Activity Credit availment Service Tax 6(3) Reversal Net Credit Chennai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 19,952,074 19,952,074 Pune Export of taxable services Full credit availed 10,666,435 10,666,435 Vikhroli Market Support Services Full credit availed 20,251,865 20,251,865 6 (5) Services Full credit availed -931,553 -931,553 Capital Goods for Service Location Full credit availed 12,405,531 12,405,531 Head Office Proportionate credit availed 37,722,278 22,144,192 15,578,086 Credit pertaining to FY 2008-09 availed under centralized registration 100,066,629 22,144,192 77,922,437 FY 2011-12 Unit Activity Credit availment Service Tax 6(3) Reversal Net Credit Chennai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 45,171,143 45,171,143 Powai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 6,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 56,780,263 Add Credit pertaining to 2012-13 availed -77,617 77,617 Add Credit pertaining to 2013-14 availed based on revised ratio -91,945 91,945 Total Credit availed under Centralized Registration (A) 58,269,043 1,319,218 56,949825 FY 2014-15 Unit Activity Credit availment Service Tax 6(3) Reversal Net Credit Chennai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 141,100,192 141,100,192 Powai Export of taxable services Full credit availed 11,579,543 11,579,543 Pune Export of taxable services Full credit availed 1,371,911 1,371,911 Vikhroli Market Support Services Full credit availed 2,419.513 2.419,513 Credit pertaining to FY 2014-15 availed under centralized registration 156,471,159 156,471,159 Add Credit pertaining to 2013-14 availed based on revised ratio 38,184 Total Credit availed under Centralized Registration (A) 156,509,343 156,509,343 35 The company understands that a provider of taxable service is allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Basis the above, the Company believes that when one did not intend to follow the procedure in Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Rules, the procedure prescribed in Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules was to be followed. 39 Further Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 started with the expression "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Rules (1) and (2)". That means, the provision of sub Rule (3) to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 would apply only to the extent of sub-Rules (1) and (2) to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 contained something contrary. A reading of sub Rules (1) and (2) to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 showed that credit on common inputs and input services cannot be taken if these were used for exempted services, and input credit could be fully used on inputs and input services exclusively used for providing taxable services. Only when the service provider does not maintain separate accounts for the common inputs and input services, he had to follow the mechanism prescribed in sub-Rule (3). 40 In the formulation given in Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules there was no intention of debarring an assessee from taking credit for duty and tax paid on inputs and input services used exclusively for providing taxable output service or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules prescribes a formula based on exempted turnover and total turnover. The formula indicates that the attempt is to ascertain input credit relatable to exempted activities out of common inputs/input services. Logically the ratio should be applied to the credit on inputs/input services used in a mixed up manner for both taxable and exempted activities. That the formulation of rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules would apply to common inputs and input services and not to the inputs and input services, which are exclusively used for taxable services, is done out by insertion of Explanation-II in rule 6(3) for "removal of doubt". This explanation clarifies that credit shall not be allowed on inputs and input services used for the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted services. That means, such credit is outside the scheme of rule 6(3). This implies that such in would not participate in the allocation formula. On the same logic, the input credit relatable to inputs and input services used exclusively for taxable services should also be outside the purview of rule 6(3). 45 Further Rule 613) of CENVAT Rules started with the expression *Notwithsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the Lower Adjudicating Authority (LAA') that the wording used in Rule 6(3A) is the total CENVAT credit taken" and therefore, the entire CENVAT credit including also those CENVAT credit of inputs and input services used exclusively in dutiable goods is incorrect. iv) There is no question of including other credits which are not at all covered by the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Rules because the credit of service tax paid on inputs or input services which are exclusively used in providing exempted services automatically get excluded because of the provision of Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT rules. If the view of the LAA is accepted, it would lead to a situation of denying part of CENVAT credit on inputs and input services which are used exclusively used for manufacture of dutiable goods/ taxable services, which is not the intention of the said rules. v) The values for "L" and "P" given in the Rule are to be read in the context and not in isolation and the impugned order giving artificial meaning and values for the factors in the formula is incorrect. The impugned order reads point (ii) and (iii) of sub-clauses (c) of Rule 6(3A) in isolation and not the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the audit team during the course of EA- 2000 Audit. The audit was conducted by the officers of the excise department. The said audit was not conducted by a Chartered Accountant. Hence, the said audit is bad in law in as much as the same is in violation of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Once the audit report falls, the show cause notice is rendered futile and the subsequent order passed by the Ld. Commissioner becomes ineffective and hence, the entire case of the department falls. 51 In support of the above submission, the Appellant place reliance on recent ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACL Education Centre Private Limited V/s Union of India reported in [2014-TIOL-120-HC ALL-ST). In the cited decision, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: "....It is Commissioner on whose behalf, the officer will collect the material and the Auditor will perform the audit. In any case, the final report duly signed by the Chartered Accountant will be submitted to the Commissioner. In case of Government Autonomous Body, the function of the audit has been assigned to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India." From the above, it is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short - levied or short - paid or erroneously refunded by reason of - Fraud; or Collusion; or Wilful mis- statement; or Suppression of facts; or Contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax, by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words "eighteen months", the words "five years" had been substituted. The said period of eighteen months for the issue of notice was effective from 28 May 2012. Up to 27 May 2012, the period prescribed for issue of notice was one year. 55 As per section 73(6)(i)(a) of Finance Act, relevant date in case where taxable service in respect of which service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, would be the date of filing of periodical service tax return where such return is filed. 56 In the present case, the company would like to submit that periodical return for the year 2008-09 and 2011-12 were filed in the year 2009-10 and 2012-13 respectively. Therefore, the time limit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly in the same manner for all years as per the applicable provisions. The authorities have accepted the calculations for FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 and have issued the SCN only for FY 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. In other words, the department has held that during the FY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the process followed by the company is correct In view of the above submissions. we request your goodself to quash the captioned SCNs. We hope the above clarifies the position. Should you require any further clarification, please feel free to revert: Thanking you. Yours faithfully, For Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Authorized Signatory Encl: As above 4.2 In order to understand the findings recorded by the Commissioner, and what led to confirmation of the demand etc against the appellant we scanned through the entire order of the adjudicating authority. The entire discussions and findings are reproduced below: "C. Discussions & Findings: 1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case, submissions made in the replies to the impugned Show the submissions made during the Personal hearing and the evidence on record. 2. The issue inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of goods and services produced/ provided in the preceding financial year and pay an amount monthly provisionally by multiplying the said ratio with cenvat credit claimed on the common services, such amount being the cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods and services. The assessee is required to calculate the final value of cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods and services for the entire year after the end of the year and in case of deficit, pay the deficit amount by 30th June of the succeeding year or, in case of excessive amount, carry forward the said amount as credit for future set-off. 4.1.2 Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 prescribes a formula based on exempted turnover and total turnover. The assessee is to ascertain provisionally the cenvat credit relatable to exempted turnover by adopting the ratio of exempted turnover to total turnover of the earlier financial year and pay an amount every month by multiplying this ratio with the cenvat credit claimed. This formula indicates that the attempt is to ascertain input credit relatable to exempted activities out of common inputs/input services. Logically the ratio should be applied to the credit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant. Hence, the said audit is bad in law in as much as the same is in violation of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Once the audit report falls, the show cause notice is rendered futile and the subsequent order passed by the Ld. Commissioner becomes ineffective and hence, the entire case of the department falls. 4.2.2 In support of the above submission, the Appellant place reliance on recent ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACI., Education Centre Private Limited v/s Union of India reported in [2014-T][OL-120-HC- ALL-ST]. In the cited decision, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: "......It is Commissioner on whose behalf, the officer will collect the material and the Auditor will perform the audit. In any case, the final report duly signed by the Chartered Accountant will be submitted to the Commissioner. In case of Government Autonomous Body, the function of the audit has been assigned to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. " 4.2.3 In light of the above ruling, the noticee submitted that the officers of the service tax department are not legally authorized to carry out audit. The officers can only call fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v/s Union of India reported in [2014-T][OL-120-HC- ALL-ST]. In the cited decision, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: "......It is Commissioner on whose behalf, the officer will collect the material and the Auditor will perform the audit. In any case, the final report duly signed by the Chartered Accountant will be submitted to the Commissioner. In case of Government Autonomous Body, the function of the audit has been assigned to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India." 10. In this regard, I find that Service Tax is an indirect tax administered by the Service Tax and Central Excise Department. Accordingly, an 'Auditor' means a Central Excise/ Service Tax officer entrusted with the duty of conducting audit. Normally it will mean an Inspector or Superintendent of Central Excise/ Service Tax. Service providers of taxable services in the entire country are also required to be audited. The relevant enabling provisions for this are, (i) Section 65(121) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that words and expressions used but not defined in Chapter V of the said Finance Act and defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 of the rules made there under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, under Rule 5A(2) the assessee shall on demand make available to the officer or audit party deputed by the Commissioner, within 15 days. ( the records mentioned in Rule 5(2), (ii) the trial balance or its equivalent and (iii) the income tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) Besides, Rule 9(5) and 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for maintenance of records by a provider of output service with respect to receipt and consumption of inputs, capital goods and input services in addition to submission of periodical returns prescribed under Rule 9(9) to Rule 9(11) ibid in respect of credit availed. 13. In view of the above, all records and documents pertaining to the business of rendering taxable service and records relating to availment of credit, including computerised accounts, can be appropriately examined by the officers while conducting audit. Hence, I am of the view that noticee's above contention is not legally tenable. The facts and circumstances of the case law relied upon by the noticee are of no assistance to their case. 14. As regard interest liability under Section 75, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CN F. No. ST-VII/Dn-1/Gr-111/Audit/Dow Chem/ 2015 dated 2016 This penalty is attracted where, among other things, any person liable to Service Tax fails to keep/maintain proper accounts/documents in accordance with the Finance Act, 1994 or the Rules made thereunder or contravenes any of the provisions of the said Act/Rules for which no separate penalty is provided. In the instant case, the noticee has contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, in as much as they have failed to file Returns declaring the correct taxable value and correctly assessing the Service Tax due on the services provided by them. Therefore, the noticee is liable to penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions and findings, I pass the following Order-" 4.4 Even authorized representative has during the course of argument has not made any single submission contradicting the claim made by the appellants. His entire submission is based only on the non production of the documents. However we find that in para 34 of their reply reproduced by us earlier, appellant clearly state that they hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court for considering an order to speaking order, in case of Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd [2011 (273) E.L.T. 345 (S.C.)]. Stressing on the need to record the reasons Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: "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 support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
