ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These 13 appeals were posted together for early hearing. We have heard Shri S.R. Rakshe, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.
2. In disposing of the stay applications the Tribunal in their order had made the following observations:-
” We have heard the submissions. We find that all applicants have placed on record affidavits and certificates from the revenue officers to the effect that they have no means to deposit even a fraction of the penalties imposed upon them. We find that in the impugned order the Commissioner has not discussed evidence relating to each of the applicant and the grounds on which in the face of the retractions etc. he has established the offence against the applicants. In the “findings” portion also paragraphs 50-51, 52 and 53 contain merely a summary of the events. Paragraphs 54 to 59 relate to the confiscation. Paragraph 60 establishes role of the applicants without any discussion at all. Ld. Counsel during the submissions pleaded for setting aside the order and for remanding the impugned order at this stage itself. At this stage, the departmental representative requires some time. We, therefore, think it proper to post this appeal for final hearing on 2nd June, 1999 after granting unconditional stay and waiver of the penalties imposed on each of the applicants. The case is posted for final disposal on 2nd June, 1999.”
3. The system of departmental adjudication is governed by the principles of natural justice. The principles require that the material against the offenders is disclosed to them in the form of show cause notice. The principles require that adequate opportunity be given to the respondents to state their case orally and in writing. The principles also require that the adjudicating authority give the judgment. After recounting the various submissions made before him he should thereafter analyse the submissions, discussing relevant case law and give his findings in a well reasoned speaking order.
4. The necessity of issue of speaking orders has been brought out in a number of judgments. The Karnataka High Court in their judgment in the case of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India -1995 (76) E.L.T. 571 had in this view quashed the orders impugned before the Court. The observation made was that in reaching the conclusions the authorities had not applied their mind to the questions that arose before them and had not written speaking orders as enjoined on them. In making this observation the Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Siemens Engg. &. Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. U.O.I. -1986 (25) E.L.T. 821. The Madras High Court in their judgment in the case of K. Balan v. G.O.I. – 1982 (10) E.L.T. 386 held, again quoting the same judgment that where an authority makes an order in exercise of quasi-judicial function, it must record reason in support of the order he makes.
5. On these requirements, we find the impugned order to be extremely inadequate.
6. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order as far as it relates to the appellants before us and remand the proceedings to the jurisdictional Commissioner for de novo adjudication. In the de novo proceedings he shall discuss the evidence available on record and pass a well reasoned order, if necessary and if so requested by the respondents to the show cause notices by allowing them to be heard in person.