ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. M/s. Thackers Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal being aggrieved from adjudication order No. 898/88 dated 26th May, 1988. Simultaneously a stay application was also filed.
2. Shri Vinay Bhasin, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the ap- plicant and has stated that the learned Additional Collector did not pass a speaking order and did not record reasons vide his order dated 26th May, 1988 and had directed only the operative part of the order and he had also filed another paper book yesterday supported with an affidavit of Shri A. K. Sodi which contains an adjudication order dated 26th May, 1988 and with the order he has also attached the reasons recorded by the Additional Collector. Mr. Bhasin says that the reasons do not bear any date and the signatures and cannot form part of the order which was passed by the Additional Collector on 26th May, 1988. Mr. Bhasin has made a prayer for the grant of stay and has also requested that the goods may be released and has also pleaded that the order passed by the Addl. Collector should be set aside.as no reasons were recorded by the learned Addl. Collector.
3. Shri A. S. R. Nair, the learned senior departmental representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, fairly states that when the order was passed on 26th May, 1988, due to paucity of time, the learned Addl. Collector could not dictate the reasons for the recording of the order. He dictated only the operative part of the order and he also states that the reasons for the passing of the order were recorded on 31st August, 1988. Shri Nair states that he has got no objection to the remand of the matter and also states that since the appellant needs the goods urgently, the Tribunal may pass a time bound order so that the appellant should not be put to any inconvenience.
4. We have heard both the sides and have gone though the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the totality of the facts, we dispense with the predeposit of penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the goods are under detention, we proceed to decide the appeal and both the sides have got no objection for the decision of the appeal. It is not disputed that the learned Addl. Collector had passed the operative part of the order on 26th May, 1988 and the reasons were recorded on 31st August, 1988. It is a judicial procedure that while passing an order the reasons have to be recorded first and the order has to be passed thereafter. In the matter before us, the reasons for coming to a conclusion were recorded on 31st August, 1988 and we are of the view that it cannot form part of the order. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Addl. Collector is a non-speaking order. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Addl. Collector of Customs for de novo adjudication. We also order that the learned Addl. Collector would grant a personal hearing to the appellant and will readjudicate the matter within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Before we part with this matter, we would like to observe that while readjudicating the matter, the learned Addl. Collector of Customs will look afresh into the matter.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Pronounced in open court.