9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 581 - HC - Service TaxCESTAT dismissed the appeal for non prosecution - The grievance of the Assessee is that the case was not listed for some hearings and on two hearings, the adjournment sought was granted and that on 21.09.2015, even though written argument was filed, the contentions raised in the written submissions were not taken into account, while passing the final order. - Held that - These submissions made clearly go to show that the Assessee has got an arguable case. The order passed by the CESTAT with regard to the non-appearance of the Assessee is cryptic and devoid of reasons. The reasons are the soul of the Judgment. The order passed without giving reasons cannot be sustained. - Matter restored before the tribunal.
Issues:
Challenge to final order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lack of opportunity to present legal contentions - Non-appearance of Assessee before Tribunal - Failure to consider written submissions - Applicability of service tax on Goods Transport Operator Service - Retrospective amendment to relevant provisions - Lack of reasons in Tribunal's order - Set aside of Tribunal's order - Direction for personal hearing before Tribunal. Analysis: The Assessee filed an Appeal challenging the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals). The Assessee contended that the Tribunal's order was passed without giving sufficient opportunity to present legal contentions. It was argued that the Assessee's counsel was hospitalized on the hearing date, leading to written submissions being sent by the clerk, but not considered by the Tribunal. The Assessee raised legal issues regarding the liability to pay service tax for the period from 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998, citing relevant provisions and retrospective amendments. The Court noted that the Tribunal's order lacked reasons and failed to consider the Assessee's contentions, leading to the set aside of the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized that the Assessee had an arguable case, and the Tribunal's order was cryptic and devoid of reasons, which are essential for a valid judgment. The Assessee's grievance included the case not being listed for some hearings, adjournments being granted, and written arguments not being taken into account in the final order. The Court held that sufficient opportunity of hearing should have been given to the Assessee, which was not done by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Assessee was directed to appear for a personal hearing before the Tribunal on a specified date. The Court directed the Tribunal to hear the matter on merits and pass orders in accordance with the law promptly. The Assessee's counsel assured the Court of appearing for the personal hearing before the Tribunal as directed. As a result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing a fair opportunity for parties to present their case and the necessity of reasoned orders in legal proceedings to ensure justice and procedural fairness.
|
