This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
•
A
..
~ I
TRAVANCORE RA YON LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
October 28, 1969
{J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
B
Speaking Order-Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, s. 36---Revisional jurisdiction of Central Government-Necessit,v of speaking order while rejecting application-Oral 'hearing-When advisable.
| The appellant companywasassessedtoexcise duty ontheconsump- tion of "nitro-cellulose lacquer" producedbyit. The company denied that the chemical compound produced and utilisedby itwas"nitro- cellulose lacquer" within the meaning of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.The Assistant Collector of Customs confirmed the assessment The CollectorofCustoms, in appeal,gavethe company a personalhea·ting and rejected the company's claimbya detailedOrder. Against this order the company invoked the revisional iurisdiction of the Central Government unders.36oftheAct. The petition was entertained but no personal hearing was givento.the company. The Government rejected the petition by an order which read : · "The Government of India have carefully considered the points madebythe applicant(s), butseeno justification for interfering with the orderinappeal. The revision application is accordingly rejected." The Company appealed to this Court. |
c D |
|---|---|
| HELD : The case must be remanded to the Central Government to bedisposedofaccording to law. (i) The Central Governmentisbys.36 invested with the judicial power of the State. A party who approaches the Government in exercise ofastatutory right for adjudication of a disputeisentitled_I!>·_know at least the official designation ofthepersonwhohasconsideredthematter, \Vhatwas consideredbyhim,andthe reasons for recording a decision against him. To enabletheHigh CourtorthisCourtto exerciseitscon- stiutionalpo~·ers,not onlythedecision, butanadequate disclosureof materials justifyinganinference thattherehasbeen a judicial considera- tion of the disputebyan authority competentinthat behalfinthe light ofthe claim madebythe aggrievedparty,isnecessary. The Court insists upon disclosureof'reasonsin support of the order on two grounds : one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court hastheopportunity to demonstratethatthereasons which persuad- edtheauthoritytorejecthiscasewereerroneous, the other, thatthe obligation torecordreasons operatesasa deterrentagainstpossiblearbi~ traryactionbytheexecutiveauthority invested withthejudicialpower. [43E-H; 46DJ _Madhja Pradesh Industries Ltd._v.UnionofIndia,[1966] 1S.C.R. 466 held overruledby_Bhagat.Raja_v.UnionofIndia, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302. StaleofMadhya Pradesh&_Anr._v.Seth Narsinghdas fankidas Mehta, C.A. No.621dated29-4-69,_StateofGujarat_v.Patel Raghav Natha& Ors.[1970] I S.C.R. 335 and_PragDas Umar Vaishva_v.UnionofIndia, C.A. No.723of1965decided on21-4-69referred to. InthiscasethecommunicationfromtheCentralGovernmentgaveno k"easonsinsupportoftheorder;itdidnot disclose the "points'' which |
E F G H |
c
D
E
F
G
•
\ '
41
' •
TRAVANCORE RAYON I', UNION (Shah, J.)
A \ere considered, who considered the points, and the reasons for rejecting them [46 BJ
(ii) Where complex and difficult questions requiring familiarity \Vi th teC'hnical problems, as in the present case, are raised, it would conduce to better administration and rndre satisfactory disposal of the grievances of the citizens if personal hearing is given, [43 B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2252 o.f 8 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the order No. 543 of 1966 dated July 16, 1966 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. New Delhi in Central Excise Revision Application.
S. Mohan Kwnarafnangalam, Soli J. Sorabji, A. K. Varma, c Ravinder Narain, J. B. Dadachanji, and 0. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the resp0ndents.
B. R. Agarwala, for intervener No. 1.
D
So/i J. Sorabji, Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, for intervener No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. The appellant Company is engaged in the production o.f cellulose film. The Central Excise Inspector reported that the appellant Company was producing in its factory nitro-cellulose lacquer [falling under tariff Item No. 22(iii)(i) No. 14(iii)(i) of E the First Schedule to the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, read with the Finance Act, 1955], without obtaining a central excise licence as required by the rules and was also removing nitrocellulose 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 Excise & Salt Act, 1944.
F
The Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, 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 pay the duty.
G
The Assistant Collector of Customs required the appellant Company to show cause why pena1ty should not be imposed on it for failing to obtain a licence for production of nitro-cellulosc lacquer. !he appella~t Company contended that what was produced by 1t was not mtro-cellulose lacquer. The Assistant Collector rejected the contention 11nd confirmed the order of asses<ment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 / •.
H
In appeal to die Collector, the appellant Company raised a large num~r of contentions-including the following :
6Sup. Cl/70--4
(1970] 3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
42
(1) that nitro-cellulose lacquer which is clear as well as pigmented falls within the purview of Item 14 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, and that clear and . • white, or murky and pigmented lacquer is not subject to duty; (2) that a certificate of test issued by the Silk Mills Research Association, Bombay showed that the nitro-cellulose lacquer content of a sample of surface-coating compound produced by the appellant Company was only 4. 7 % and it could not be considered nitro-cellulose lacquer within the meaning of the Act; and (3) that the failure to levy duty on the product from 1955 to 1962 was proof of the fact that the Excise Department was itself of the view that the product was not excisable. The Collector of Customs consulted the Chemical Examiner and was of the view that the opinion expressed by the Silk Mills Research Association, Bombay, was not correct. In considering the question 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. Against the order dismissing the appeal, the appellant Company moved a petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government under s. 36 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. The pe\ition was entertained, but no personal hearing was given to the appellant Company. By order oated July 16, 1966, communicated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Finance, the petition was rejected. The order read: "The Government of India have carefully considered the points made by the applicant ( s), but see no justification for interfering with the order in appeal. The revision application is accordingly rejected." Against the order passed by the Central Government this appeal is preferred with special leave.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
TRAVANCORE RAYON V, UNION (Shah, /,)
43
..
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
that behalf in the light of the claim made by the aggrieved party, is necessary. If the Officer acting on behalf of the Government chooses to give no reasons, the right of appeal will be devoid of any substance.
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 acceI,>ted 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 Ltd. v. Union of India and Others('). In that case, Bachawat, J., on behalf of himself and Mudholkar, J ., refused to accept the contention that the order passed by the Government of India rejecting a revision application under the Mineral Concession Rules was liable to be quashed, because it did not give any reasons. Bachawat, J., observed at p. 477 :
''There is a vi ta! difference between the order of reversal by the appellate authority in that case for no reason whatsoever and the order of affirmance by the revising authority iii the present case. Having stated that there was no valid ground for interference, the revising authority was not bound to give fuller reasons. It is impossible to say that the impugned order was arbitrary, or that there was no proper trial of the revision application."
8
c
D
E
On the other hand, Subba Rao, J., observed at p. 472:
''The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made: and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial dispos·a1.
"The conception of exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the manner of disposal provided in r. 55 of the Rules are indicative of the scope and nature. of the Government's jurisdiction., If tribunals can make orders without giving reasons, the said power in the nands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may tum out to be a
F
G
H
(I) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 466.
45
TRAVANCORE RAYON V, UNION (Shah, J,)
A
A weapon for abuse of power. But if reasons for an order are given, it will be an effective restraint ?n such abuse, as the orders, if it discloses extraneous or melevant 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 B public should not be deprived of this only safeguard.
...... The 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 the c least they should do is to give reasons for their orders . . . . . . . Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly, but in a case of affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with those D reasons. What is essential is_ that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each case."
E In a later judg!14lnt Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India an.d Others('), the Constitution Bench of this Court in effect ovetruled the judgment of the majority in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd's case('). The Court held that the decisions of tribunals in India are subject to the supervisory powers of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution and of appel!ate powers of this F Court under Art. 136. The High Court and this Court would be placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given and the revision is dismissed by the _use of the single word 'rejected' or 'dismissed'. The Court in that case held that the order of the Central Government in appeal, did not set out any reasons of its own and on that account set aside that order. In our view, the· majority judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries G Ltd's case(') has been overruled by this Court in Bhagat Raja's case(').
[1970] 3 s.c.R.
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Others('); and Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. The Union of India and Others(').
In this case the communication from the Central Government gave no reasons in support of the order : the appellant Company is merely intimated thereby that the Government of India did not see any reasons to interfere "with the order in appeal". The commun:cation does not disclose the "points" which were considered, and the reasons for rejecting them. This is a totally unsatisfactory method of disposal of a case in exercise of the judicial power vested in the Central Government Necessity to give sufficient tfasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached, in cases where a non-judicial authority exercises judicial functiol)S, is obvious. When judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency. The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds : one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before· the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous : the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power.
The appeal is allowed ·and the order passed by the Central Government is set aside. The case is remanded to the Central Government with the direction that it be disposed of according to law. In this case, we are of the view, having regard to ·the complicated and technical questions involved, that the Central Government may be well-advised to give an oral hearing to the appellant Company. The Union of India will pay the costs of this appeal to the appellant Company.
Y.P.
Appeal allowed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(1) C.A. No, 723of1965 decided on Aprll 21; 1969.
(2) C.A. No. 687 of 1965 decided on A"·""'' 17, 1967,
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of IndiaExplained
[1966] 1 S.C.R. 466 · Who else cites this
Bhagat Raja v. Union of IndiaRelied on
[1967] 3 S.C.R. 302 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Seth Narsinghdas Jankidas MehtaReferred
C.A. No. 621 of 1969 decided on April 29, 1969
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors.Referred
[1970] 1 S.C.R. 335 · Who else cites this
Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. Union of IndiaReferred
C.A. No. 723 of 1965 decided on April 21, 1969
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Travancore Rayon Ltd.
Union of India
J. C. Shah
K. S. Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
