Appeal — Order — Non-reasoned order — Absence of reasons suggestive of order being arbitrary and in breach of principle of natural justice.

[Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Pune-1, 2011 (263) ELT 206 (Bom.)]

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed
by CESTAT. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal for want of
reasons and contended that the impugned order was arbitrary. It was submitted
that the impugned order of the Tribunal was arbitrary and suffered from
non-application of mind.

The issue that arose for consideration was whether it was
permissible for the Tribunal to brush aside the submission advanced by the
appellant without threadbare discussion and without recording reasons in support
of the view taken.

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
did not state any reasons for the view taken. In absence of reasons in support
of the order it was difficult to assume that the Tribunal had properly applied
its mind before passing the order directing predeposit.

It was further observed that no doubt, it was true that there
is no precise statutory or other definition of the term ‘arbitrary’.
Arbitrariness in making an order by the authority manifests itself in different
forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making an order was only one of
them. Every order passed by the judicial or quasijudicial authority must
disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This
may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained
by the authority. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of its
mind by the authority making the order. Absence of reasons either in the order
passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained, is
clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary and in breach of the principles
of natural justice, hence illegal and unsustainable. In the result, the impugned
order was set aside.