AL SHAMS SOAP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE vs CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another

' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This further appeal under section 36-C of the Central Excises Act, 1944 assails an order recorded by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13-12-1999.

2. According to the statement of the case the appellant a company limited by shares and engaged in manufacture of toilet soap was served with a show-cause notice on the basis of a raid conducted by the Department on 26-10-1992. The unit was found in operation and the workers were busy in packing of toilet soap. According to the department the factory premises were inspected by the raiding staff in the presence of the owner and found 662 cartons of Sofina and Nimbil Brand both packed and unpacked. When compared with the entries of RG I Register and DPR Book these goods were found to be unaccounted for and accordingly seized. The raiding team also took into possession 17 registers alongwith RR. I Register and DPR Book. The scrutiny of the private record allegedly revealed that during the period ranging from November, 1987 to August, 1992 as many as 102667 cartons of toilet soap (each of 72 cakes) had illegally been cleared resulting in loss of central excise duty to the, tune of Rs,53,66,880.

3. The appellant was charged with contravention of rules 7, 9, 43, 52, 52-A, 198, 26, 236, 237, 244 and 246 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On usual proceedings the seized goods i,e, 662 cartons of toilet soap were confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs,22,872 in addition to the leviable central excise duty. Also the aforesaid evaded sum of Rs,53,66,880 was directed to be paid alongwith almost an equal amount of Rs,53,59,179 as penalty.

4. The order so recorded was challenged before the Tribunal, on a number of grounds. After noting these grounds the Tribunal found that the fate of the case hinged on the determination of two points. Firstly, if the premises belonged to the appellant or to the party namely M/s. AlHajaz Marketing Corporation and secondly, if the quantities seized at the time of raid and the one cleared in the past were toilet soap or laundry soap.

5. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal before them in the following words:-- "We see that the learned adjudicating officer has already discussed the aforesaid two points in a speaking and convincing manner vide para.18 of the impugned order. We fully endorse and confirm the conclusions drawn by him and the orders passed thereto vide para.19 of the order in original. Here we would like to note that the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants Mian Abdul Ghaffar, are nothing but rhetoric and not based on any substantive and concrete evidence. These in fact are unfoudned, sketchy and lop-sided besides being evasive, irrelevant. On the other hand the uepartment has placed on record incontrovertible evidence to establish that the appellants had been indulging in the clandestine clearance of huge quantity of toilet soap in the past which had resulted in clossal loss to the national exchequer."

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contends and we will agree with him that the learned Tribunal did not consider the arguments put forth before it. Also it did not address itself to the two issues earlier framed by it. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal as reproduced above bears witness to the fact that the learned Division Bench of the Tribunal did not apply its mind either to the facts of the case or to the contentions raised before it.

These contentions were detailed in the earlier part of the order but never adverted to. The operative part of the order, in fact, is so general in nature that it can be suffixed to any kind of facts falling for determination of a judicial or quasi-judicial forum.

7. It is correct that an appellate forum is not required to record detailed reasons when it is in agreement with the findings of the forum below. However, it must record its reasons for agreement in the perspective of the grounds taken before it. Mere desire not to interfere with the order of the Departmental Authorities or a forum below means nothing. That desire must have some rationale.

The Tribunal as a final fact-finding forum must have supported its agreement with the order of the Collector (Appeals) by reasons. That is the only way that it could show that justice was being done with the aggrieved party.

8. That having not been done, we will set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to them for their consideration afresh of the grounds both factual as well as legal raised before them or to be raised by the appellants.

' Case remanded.