2019 (6) TMI 723 - AT - Service Tax

Request for adjournment - Scope of SCN - Intellectual property rights - demand of Interest and penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant's plea related to Intellectual property rights is not a new one and that he has been given a copy of the above synopsis in the earlier hearing itself and he may therefore argue the matter. It was also pointed out that Ld. AR could very well have sought adjournment in the morning session itself if he was not ready with his arguments.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment due to alleged new plea regarding service tax on technical know-how.
2. Disruption of proceedings by the respondent's representative.
3. Accusations against the Bench and request for respect.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a request for adjournment by the respondent's representative, claiming a new plea regarding service tax on technical know-how. Despite the respondent's insistence on needing time to prepare arguments, the Bench clarified that the appellant's plea was not new and had been previously submitted. The Bench highlighted that the matter had been re-listed and adjourned multiple times, ultimately denying the request for further adjournment. The respondent's representative refused to argue the matter, leading to disruptions in the proceedings.

2. The judgment addressed the disruptive behavior of the respondent's representative, who walked out of the court during the proceedings and continuously raised objections and interruptions. The judgment noted that this was not the first instance of such behavior by the representative, citing previous occasions of disruptive actions. The respondent's representative had previously accused the Bench of partiality, which was refuted by the Bench as factually incorrect.

3. Following the disruptions and adjournment of the matter, the respondent's representative made remarks about the Bench considering representatives as slaves and contingent laborers, emphasizing the importance of respect in the proceedings. The judgment directed a copy of the order to be forwarded to higher authorities for their information. Despite the disruptions and accusations, the matter was adjourned to a later date for both sides to prepare adequately.

Overall, the judgment detailed the events surrounding the request for adjournment, disruptions caused by the respondent's representative, and subsequent remarks made regarding respect in the proceedings. The Bench maintained order and addressed the disruptive behavior while ensuring the fair adjudication of the matter by adjourning it to a later date.