2009 (7) TMI 274 - AT - Service Tax

Non-speaking order - Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, on the ground of non-compliance of pre-deposit order - order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is devoid of any findings on the merits of the case although it recorded that appellant had not filed any reply nor they appeared for to the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority.- It is well settled that the Tribunal cannot go into the merits of the case if the lower authority has not given findings on the merits - Since, the appellant has already discharged entire service tax liability, to meet the ends of justice, in my opinion the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to hear the case afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection based on non-compliance of Section 35F - Lack of findings on merits - Remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any findings on the merits of the case, despite attempting to address the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal noted that without findings on the merits, they cannot delve into the case. Referring to the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Beechem, it was established that the Tribunal cannot assess the merits if the lower authority has not done so. As the appellant had already settled the service tax liability, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh hearing. The appellant was directed to submit their reply within three weeks, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to issue an adjudication order following the principles of natural justice promptly. The appeal was allowed for remand to ensure justice is served through a proper adjudication process.