TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with the Finance Act, 1955], without obtaining a central excise licence as required by the rules and was also removing nitro-cellulose lacquer for "internal use" without payment of duty. The appellant Company denied that the chemical compound utilised by it to render plain film moisture-proof was "nitro-cellulose lacquer" within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Central Excises, determined that the appellant Company was liable to pay, for the period between March 1, 1955 and September 19, 1962, Rs. 4,88,797.34 as excise duty on the consumption of nitro-cellulose lacquer produced by the Company. The Deputy Superintendent issued a demand notice, but the appellant Company failed to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n about the reason for not levying duty for nearly seven years, the Collector thought it necessary to give a fresh hearing to the appellant Company. Additional arguments were advanced at the second hearing. After considering the arguments advanced by the appellant Company the Collector wrote a detailed judgment setting out the "points" on which he held against the claim of the appellant Company, and expressed the view that the appellant Company was not right in contending that only that chemical which is "clear and pigmented" falls within the purview of Item 14 of the First Schedule. 6. Against the order dismissing the appeal, the appellant Company moved a petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring is given, it would conduce to better administration and more satisfactory disposal of the grievances of citizens. The order does not disclose the name or designation of the authority of the Government of India who considered "the points made by the applicants", and it is impossible to say whether the officer was familiar with the subject matter so that he could decide the dispute without elucidation and merely on a perusal of the papers. The form in which the order was communicated is apparently a printed form. There is a bare assertion by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in his communication that the Government of India had "carefully considered the points made by the applicants, there is no evidence as to who considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment chooses to give no reasons, the right of appeal will be devoid of any substance. 8. Dr. Seyid Muhammad appearing for the Union of India contended that where the Central Government dismisses the petition, it is not obliged to give any reasons, for, it must be assumed that the Government had accepted every reason given by the Collector, and by dismissing the petition the officer acting on behalf of the Government must be deemed to have incorporated the reasons given by the Collector in the judgment. Counsel relies in support of this contention on the decision of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v. Union of India (1966) 1 SCR 466 = (AIR 1966 SC 671). In that case, Bachawat, J. on behalf of himself and Mudholkar, J. ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a weapon for abuse of power. But if reasons for an order are given, it will be an effective restraint on such abuse, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant considerations, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. This habit of mind of an executive officer so formed cannot be expected to change from function to function or from act to act. So it is essential that some restrictions shall be imposed on tribunals in the matter of passing orders affecting the rights of parties; and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, (1966) 1 SCR 466 = (AIR 1966 SC 671) has been overruled by the Court in Bhagat Raja's case (1967) 3 SCR 302 = (AIR 1967 SC 1606). 10. In later decisions of this Court it was held that where the Central Government exercising power in revision gives no reasons, the order will be regarded as void : see State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narsinghdas Jankidas Mehta, C.A. No. 681 of 1966, D/- 29-4-1969 = (AIR 1969 NSC 115); The State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Nath, C.A. No. 723 of 1966, D/- 21-4-1969 = (AIR 1969 SC 1297); and Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. Union of India, C.A. No. 657 of 1967, D/- 17-8-1967 (SC). 11. In this case the communication from the Central Government gave no reasons in support of the order; the appellant Company is merely intim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
