2015 (7) TMI 791 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of summons issued - whether summons issued to the appellant can be treated as an appealable decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority as per provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the summons issued by Superintendent (Prev.) while carrying out an investigation is legal or not - Held that - Appellant has not appeared for personal hearings on the previous occasions when the case fixed and today also appellant has sought for adjournment. It shows that appellant is not serious in pursuing his case therefore, adjournment request is rejected as well as the appeal is also liable to be rejected for non-prosecution. On merits also it is observed that powers to issue summons by an investigating authority are provided under Section 14 and cannot be considered in the nature of a decision or order as mentioned under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The findings recorded by the first appellate authority clearly discuss the provisions of Section 14 and Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while arriving at the point that summons issued to the appellant are neither appealable decisions nor orders passed under Central Excise Act, 1944. The purpose of issue summon during an investigation is to gather information from the appellant. The ground taken by the appellant, that conducting enquiry by the Revenue is unjust, illegal and arbitrary, is without any basis and is required to be dismissed as the powers of investigation given to the Revenue cannot be curtailed on such flimsy reasons taken by the appellant. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appealability of summons issued to the appellant under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Legality of summons issued by Superintendent (Prev.) during an investigation.

Analysis:
1. Appealability of Summons:
The main issue in the present proceedings was whether the summons issued to the appellant could be considered an appealable decision or order under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant failed to appear for hearings multiple times, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The Revenue argued that the summons were issued to obtain information during an investigation, and such powers were granted to the proper officer under Section 14 of the Act. The learned AR strongly defended the first appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the summons were not appealable orders but merely notices for information gathering. The Tribunal observed that the powers to issue summons during an investigation were provided under Section 14 and did not qualify as appealable decisions or orders under Section 35 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's findings that the purpose of issuing summons was to gather information and that the appellant's objections against the investigation were baseless and unsubstantiated.

2. Legality of Summons:
The Tribunal further noted that the appellant's repeated requests for adjournments and non-appearance at hearings demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing the case. The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request and ultimately dismissed the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds. It was emphasized that the powers of investigation granted to the Revenue could not be restricted based on unfounded objections raised by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was to be rejected on merits as well as for non-prosecution, highlighting the importance of complying with procedural requirements and actively participating in the appeal process.