2015 (9) TMI 1157 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of impugned order - Cargo handling service or manpower recruitment or supply service - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Adjudicating authority did not even devote a single sentence to analyze the service rendered by the appellant with a view to arriving at a finding that the said service fell under the category of cargo handling service. Thus, we find the orders-in-original nonspeaking; that apart, the appellants contention that they had not received any show cause notice has also not been dealt within is the impugned order-in-appeal and if true, the orders-in-original / the impugned orders-in-appeal would be liable to be set- aside as having been issued in violation of the principles of natural Justice. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) based on Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules 2001 without proper examination of grounds; Lack of analysis on service provided by appellants under cargo handling service category; Non-receipt of show cause notice by appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to stay applications and appeals filed against the impugned order-in-appeal Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73 (ST)/RPR-1/2013 dated 03/04/2013, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants' appeals invoking Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules 2001. The ground for rejection was the alleged non-examination of grounds by the adjudicating authority, i.e., Commissioner (Appeals), due to the absence of an opportunity to examine the same. The appellants contended that they did not receive any show cause notice or notice of hearing, emphasizing that the orders-in-original were passed without serving any show cause notice or notice of hearing. They argued that they were not providing cargo handling service but only manpower services. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address these crucial points and merely noted the absence of a reply to the show cause notice. Additionally, there was a lack of analysis in the orders-in-original regarding how the service provided by the appellants could be categorized as cargo handling service.

The discussion/finding portion of the orders-in-original highlighted the failure of the adjudicating authority to analyze the nature of the service provided by the appellants to determine its classification under cargo handling services. The orders were deemed non-speaking as they lacked substantive analysis. Moreover, the appellants' claim of not receiving the show cause notice was not addressed in the impugned order-in-appeal. The judgment emphasized the violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-examination of critical aspects and non-receipt of show cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement and remand the cases to the primary adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication adhering to the principles of natural justice. This included ensuring the service of show cause notices to the appellants if not previously served and granting them an opportunity to be heard, thereby disposing of the stay applications and appeals on these terms.