2010 (6) TMI 115 - AT - Service Tax

Natural Justice- the impugned order was passed by the lower appellate authority without following the due course of natural justice. Held that- the ld. adjudicating authority to grant a fair opportunity of hearing. In order to expeditiously dispose of the matter, direct the appellant to appear before the ld. adjudicating authority before 30.7.2010 and make an application for fixation of the date of hearing. If no application comes forward from the appellant before the ld. adjudicating authority, he shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law without waiting for further representation of the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of substantiation of claim by the appellant before the appellate authority.
2. Grievances of the appellant regarding personal hearings and natural justice.
3. Absence of the appellant before the adjudicating authority.
4. Fair opportunity for the appellant to be heard and proper rebuttal of charges.
5. Remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fair opportunity of hearing and expeditious disposal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI addressed the issue of the appellant's failure to substantiate their claim before the appellate authority. The ld. D.R. submitted that the appellant did not provide evidence to support their claim, leading to the order upholding the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal noted the grievances raised by the appellant regarding personal hearings and natural justice, including the pendency of a writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was highlighted that the impugned order was passed without following due course of natural justice.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the absence of the appellant before the adjudicating authority, which hindered the presentation of evidence to convince the authority. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant deserved a fair opportunity to be heard and to properly rebut the charges. As a result, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with specific directives to ensure a fair hearing process and timely disposal of the case.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority by a specified date and make an application for the hearing. If the appellant failed to do so, the adjudicating authority was instructed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of avoiding dilatory tactics and set a timeline for the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter within three months of the final hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on upholding principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case, and expeditiously resolving the matter at hand. The decision aimed to address the appellant's grievances and provide a procedural framework for a just outcome.