M/S. Dresser Valve (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore
- Case No.Appeal No. E/42520/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appellate authority must record reasons in a speaking order, showing the extent of its examination of the material and whether any enquiry is needed to test the appellant's submissions; an order that merely disposes of the issue technically, without examining the merits or stating the departure from law relied upon, is liable to be set aside and remanded. A decision on a similar issue on a prior occasion, if relied upon by the appellant, must be applied consistently, and an unexplained departure from the earlier reasoning in comparable circumstances is not permissible; the appellant is entitled to be heard on its submissions before a reasoned order is passed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 336/2013 dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore)
M/s. Dresser Valve (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance
Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 30.09.2015
Final Order No. 41335 / 2015
Learned counsel explains that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to record what was the discrepancy and in what manner there was a departure to law. Simply in para 5 of his order, he has technically dealt the issue without going into the details of the merits of the case. It is further submission of the appellant that the so called technical defects can be removed if the authority patiently hears the appellant and examines the entire evidence. There were correct document filed and similar such issue was also dealt by earlier Commissioner (Appeals) on previous occasion and appellant succeeded. With similar such case, there should not be difference in judgment merely with the passage of time.
2. Learned AR for Revenue has submitted that the Order-in-Original has dealt entire allegation against the appellant. But elaborate discussion was made by the adjudicating authority.
3. Perusal of para 5 and 6 of the order of the appellate authority does not disclose the extent of examination by appellate authority. He has also not indicated whether any enquiry is desirable to test the veracity of the submission of the appellant. The appellate authority should have tested materials while he passed the impugned order. That not being done and also there is no uniformity in application of law which the elementary principle of law, the appellant deserves to be reheard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on his submissions to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
4. In the result, the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for passing appropriate order after granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free