2007 (9) TMI 46 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal has earlier remanded the matter back to the commissioner for de novo decision. Departmental appeal against the decision of remanding back to the case of the Commissioner (A) is not sustainable because the review of tribunal own orders is not permissible under law

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in Final Orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 84(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The revenue filed applications seeking rectification of mistake in Final Orders passed by the Tribunal, which had set aside the Commissioner's review order due to lack of personal hearing and remanded the cases back for de novo decision. The revenue argued that the Commissioner's power to review orders under Section 84(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, had expired as two years had passed since the original orders. The revenue contended that further personal hearing was unnecessary as delayed tax payment and non-filing of returns were admitted facts. However, upon review, it was found that the Tribunal had correctly directed de novo decision with proper personal hearing. The revenue's assertion that personal hearing would serve no purpose was deemed as an impermissible attempt to review the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's applications.

In the judgment, it was highlighted that the Tribunal's decision to remand the cases for de novo decision with proper personal hearing was in line with the provisions of Section 84(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal's order was upheld as valid, and it was noted that the revenue's arguments against the necessity of personal hearing were considered as an impermissible attempt to review the Tribunal's order, which was not allowed by law. Therefore, the applications filed by the revenue for rectification of mistake in the Final Orders were deemed without merit and subsequently dismissed.

The learned DR representing the revenue contended that the Tribunal had erred in finding that adequate opportunity of personal hearing was not provided to the assessees. However, upon examination of the records and the Final Orders, it was reaffirmed that the Tribunal's decision to remand the cases for de novo decision with proper personal hearing was correct. The assertion by the revenue that personal hearing was unnecessary due to admitted facts was not accepted, as it was viewed as an attempt to review the Tribunal's order, which was impermissible under the law. Consequently, the applications for rectification of mistake were found to lack substance and were dismissed by the Tribunal.