AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.R. Dave, J.—Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. D. N. Patel for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today.
The petitioner has been aggrieved by an Order dated 3-7-2003 passed by respondent No. 2.
Learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Dave appearing for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that respondent No. 2 is an appellate authority has not given any reason for setting aside the Order which was challenged before him. It has been submitted by him that according to the Provisions of Section 35A(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to referred as the "Act"), it was obligatory on the part of respondent No. 2 to give reasons for the decision taken by him. As no reason has been given by the appellate authority, according to Mr. P. M. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-application of mind. It has been therefore submitted by him that the impugned order should be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. D. N. Patel for the respondents has tried to justify the Order by saying that the reasons have already been incorporated by way of submissions of one of the parties in the order passed by the appellate authority.
We have heard the learned advocates and upon perusal of the impugned order, we see that the appellate authority has not recorded any reason as required Under the Provisions of Section 35-A(iv) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that whenever any Order is passed by any executive authority or quasi judicial authority, the order should be supported by the reasons so that higher authority or the appellate authority can see whether the authority deciding the matter had applied its mind and can know whether the reasons for which a particular decision was arrived at are just and proper.
In the instant case, we find that no reason has been recorded by respondent No. 2 for allowing the appeal. We therefore quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 3-7-2002 and remand the matter to respondent No. 2. We clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the appeal. It would be therefore open to the concerned parties to make all submissions so that respondent No. 2 can hear and decide the matter afresh. We are sure that respondent No. 2 shall record the reasons for arriving at a particular decision in his Order.
The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no Order as to costs.