Appellate Tribunal — Reasoned order — Judgment cited but no reference found in the order, nor any discussion with respect to rival submission found.

21 Appellate Tribunal — Reasoned order — Judgment cited
but no reference found in the order, nor any discussion with respect to rival
submission found.

The appeal was filed before the High Court against the order
of the CESTAT. The Revenue contented that the contention raised by the Revenue
was not discussed and the order was cryptic and unreasoned. No reference was
made to the judgment cited by the Revenue.

The Court held that the order is in breach of principles of
natural justice. There is no discussion with respect to rival submissions made
by the parties. There is no consideration or any discussion with regard to the
nature of goods imported, Exim policy or clauses thereof.

The first paragraph of the order was a preamble to the order,
whereas the second para of the order refers to the findings given by the
adjudicating Commissioner, whereas the third para takes notice of the definition
of word ‘goods’ and finally in the fourth para, a conclusive finding without
there being any threadbare discussion is recorded. The Court held that such
order cannot be said to be a reasoned order with application of mind.

The Court further observed that when the said judgment was
cited before the Tribunal, it was expected on the part of the Tribunal either to
consider the said judgment or distinguish it or to refer it to the larger Bench
if contrary view was warranted.

The Tribunal should bare in mind that the judgments of the
Tribunal were subject to scrutiny by High Courts, especially, in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction and/or writ jurisdiction. The higher Courts are expected
to read the mind of the lower authority. In absence of reasons, it become
difficult for the higher Courts to consider the issue involved in the case and
the view taken therein. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to
reason in an indispensable part of sound judicial system, reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the Court.
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone
against him. One of the statutory requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The order was
set and matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

[Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Wartsila India
Ltd., 2010 (254) ELT 406]