2019 (2) TMI 1767 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - ex-parte order passed in absence of the Revenue - It is the grievance of the Revenue that they have not been properly heard by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had finalized the matter only on one date of hearing, on which the appeals were heard ex parte in absence of the Revenue and the same were disposed of - in the interest of justice, the impugned orders is set aside and the appeals allowed by way of remand to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who shall hear both the parties and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Setting aside impugned orders due to lack of proper hearing by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Anil Choudhary and Hon’ble Mr. C.L. Mahar, addressed the issue of lack of proper hearing by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in two appeals filed by the Department against different impugned orders. The Tribunal noted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had finalized the matter on only one date of hearing, conducting ex parte proceedings in the absence of the Revenue, which led to the grievance that the Revenue had not been properly heard. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal directed the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to conduct a fresh hearing where both parties would be given a proper opportunity to present their case. It was specified that the matter should be concluded expeditiously, with no long adjournments granted. A specific date for the first hearing was set, and both parties were instructed to appear on that date and any further dates fixed for the hearing. Importantly, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was mandated to dispose of the appeals within 75 days from the date of the first hearing, emphasizing that adjournments should not be sought for trivial reasons. The Tribunal also mentioned that the appeals, along with any miscellaneous applications and stay applications, were disposed of as part of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough hearing of the appeals by remanding the case back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication where both parties would have the opportunity to present their arguments. The strict timelines and instructions provided were intended to expedite the process and prevent unnecessary delays, emphasizing the importance of a just and efficient resolution of the matter.