1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.38 OF 2005. PETITIONER: M/s D. P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd, through its Managing Director Shri Radheshyam Ramniwasji Sharda, aged about 51 years, Occupation- business, R/o 49, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, (CESTAT), Jai Centre, 3rd Floor, 34, P. D. Mello Road, Poona Street, Masjid Bunder (E), Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur, Kendriya Utpad Shulka Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 3. The Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I, Kendriya Utpad Shulka Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 2 ------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders. Shri V. M. Deshpande, Advocate, for appellant. Shri S. K. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for Respondents no.2 & 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 10/09/2009. 1. The CESTAT has, by order dated 24-12-2004, disposed off the appeal No. E/264/98 by a short order. 2. According to Mr. V. M. Deshpande, it is not a reasoned order. According to the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India Shri S. K. Mishra, it contains sufficient reasons. 3. The appeal before us is under Section 35-G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that following question arises as substantial question of law:- 3 Whether the impugned order contains the reasons sufficient to show the application of mind and is, therefore, legally sustainable? 4. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the order, we note that in para no.1 only the contentions of respective parties are reproduced, and then in para 2, the learned Members have stated that they are fully convinced that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The order, therefore, implies that in the light of the argument advanced, and after perusal of the records, the Members found the order of the first appellate Court namely the Commissioner of Central Excise to be legal and valid. 5. The present appellant approached the CESTAT with a grievance that the said order was not legal and valid. They had filed their memo of appeal and raised the contentions orally also to assail that 4 order. It is informed that the written notes of arguments were also filed. CESTAT, therefore, ought to have considered those grounds and then evaluated their correctness or otherwise. Para 2 of the impugned order is nothing, but expression of conclusion and the said para 2 can be introduced in any order. The application of mind has to be qua the contentions raised and in the background of facts and material on record. 6. We are, therefore, not in a position to hold that the impugned order contains any reason, and hence, same is not sustainable. The order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The proceedings in appeal no. E/264/98 are restored back to the file of the Respondent no.1 Tribunal. Respondent no. 1 Tribunal to decide the same after hearing the parties before it in accordance with law as early as possible. 7. It is clarified that the interim 5 order granted by the CESTAT on 16-4-1988 shall continue to operate during pendency of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/