2005 PLP 1019 (YLR)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

This single judgment shall decide the present appeal (C.A. No.90 of 1999) and two connected appeals (C.As. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999) as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals they are between the same parties and have arisen out of identical judgments, passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal).

2. Through the filing of these three appeals, under section 36-C of the Central Excises Act, 1944, the appellant has called in question judgments, all dated 26-5-1999, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed appellant s three Central Excise Appeals (Nos.170/LB, 171/LB and 173/LB of 1999).

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, are devoid of reasons, hence the same are not sustainable. He, while referring to order dated 24-3-2003, passed by this Court in appellant s application (C.M. No.207 of 2003), has further stated that the Notification SRO No.468(1) of 1996 dated 13-6-1996 has been amended by Notification SRO No.330(1) of 2002 dated 15-6-2002, whereby proviso in the earlier notification has been omitted, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the return of the duty already paid. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the said contention and has submitted that even according to notification dated 15-6-2002, the appellants are not entitled to claim refund of excise duty, already paid.

4. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel, we have examined the impugned judgments and find that the learned Tribunal has decided the appeals in three lines. It would be appropriate to reproduce the concluding portion of the judgments, which reads as follows:-- we have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record and agree with the learned D.R. that there is no legal infirmity in the orders appealed against and appeal having no legal force is dismissed. It is evident from the above that the impugned judgments are sketchy, slip shod and devoid of reasons and the same cannot be called a speaking or judicial order within the parameters of law. The tenor of the impugned judgments amply manifests non-application of judicial mind. No reasons have been assigned by the learned Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that how appellant s appeals have no force. Even it has been enjoined upon an executive authority, as per section 24(A) of General Clauses Act, 1897 (inserted by General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997, Act No.XI of 1997) to give reasons for making the order.

5. It is settled law that judicial order must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court/Tribunal has applied its judicial mind to the issues and points of controversy involved in the causes. Furthermore, when the reasons would not be forthcoming, obviously the Appellate Court would be deprived of the views of the subordinate Court. In any way the impugned judgments, which are not speaking orders and devoid of reasons, are not sustainable in law being in contravention of law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in various cases, like Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 272; Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller Import and Export and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 158; Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 and Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Secretary, Ministry of Labour and others 1984 SCMR 1014.

6. Coming to the other contention of the learned counsel, as we are inclined to remand the case to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the matter, therefore, we have refrained ourselves to give any findings on the said issue. As after remand the matter would be pending before the learned Tribunal, therefore, it would also decide the said question, if raised by the appellant.

7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments dated 26-5-1999 are set aside with no order as to costs. Appellant s three Central Excise Appeals (Nos. 170/LB, 171/LB and 173/LB of 1999 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Tribunal, who shall decide the same, afresh, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law. S.A.K./N-7/L Cases remanded.