Allowed

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise,Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018CEXA/30/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Central Excise appeal, the High Court quashed a Tribunal order dated 27.06.2017 as a non-speaking order. The court held that the decision breached natural justice by failing to record or address party submissions, restoring the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27th June, 2017 is quashed and set aside and the Appeal is restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise,Mumbai Central Commissionerate Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

14-CEXA-30-2018.DOC

¶2

jsn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2018

¶5

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, … Appellant Mumbai Central Commissionerate V/s.

¶6

M/s. Development Credit Bank Ltd. … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, with Mr. J.B. Mishra for the Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Ostwal with Mr. Jas Sanghavi, I/b PDS Legal for thte Respondent.

¶8

CORAM:	M.S.SANKLECHA &
	RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE:	23RD OCTOBER, 2018.

¶9

PC:-

¶10

This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 27th June, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).

¶11

Mr. Jetly, the learned counsel appearing in support of the Appellant urges the following question of law for our consideration:-

¶12

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal right in allowing the Respondent's Appeal without considering the submissions of the parties and passing a speaking order”?

¶13

1/3

¶14

14-CEXA-30-2018.DOC

¶15

The Appeal is admitted on the above substantial question of law.

¶16

At the request of the parties, the Appeal is disposed of finally at the stage of admission as the dispute is within a narrow compass.

¶17

We find that the impugned order dated 27th June, 2017 does not record the contentions / submissions made by the parties before it and consequently the manner in which the contentions / submissions of the parties are dealt with, is not disclosed in the impugned order. Thus the impugned order dated 27th June, 2017 is a non-speaking order. The Tribunal is required to decide the issue raised before it on consideration of the submissions of the parties and that consideration should be reflected in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is settled position in law that giving of reasons in support of the conclusion on consideration of the submissions is an integral part of the Rule of law as held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Shukla & Bros.¹ . In the present case, we note that the impugned order merely records the dispute and that the Appellant supports the Appeal and the department representative opposes the Appeal. Thus this order being a non-

¶18

1 2010 (4) SCC 785.

¶19

2/3

¶20

14-CEXA-30-2018.DOC

¶21

speaking order is in breach of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law.

¶22

In view of the above, the proposed question is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Appellant Revenue and against the Respondent – Assessee. The order dated 27th June, 2017 is quashed and set aside and the Appeal is restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶23

Appeal allowed in above terms. All contentions kept open.

¶24

( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶25

3/3

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise,Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise,Mumbai Central Commissionerate v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pams Industries Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai Zone-I

Craft World Vs the Jt Commissioner of Service Tax and Anr.

Star Rays Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Gaware Earth Movers Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puneii

M/S. Pearl International through Its Proprietor Vs Union of India through Chief Commissioner and Anr.

Apar Industries Limited Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.