2012 (6) TMI 423 - AT - Service Tax

Matter was heard by the Bench consisting of learned Member (Judicial) and (Technical) on various dates - the notice for listing the matter afresh was shocking as detailed arguments were advanced by both the sides and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of orders - Sr. Advocate submits that they have not made a prayer for fresh hearing while filing the Misc. application - Held that - After appreciating the submissions made by the learned Sr. Advocate, expressing difficulty in rehearing of the appeal and making a request for passing of the order by the same Bench who heard the matter originally it is desirable to place the file before the Hon ble President for passing appropriate orders, as having no powers/jurisdiction to place the matter before any particular Bench - Registrar is directed to place the file before the Hon ble President.

Summary

Issues: Misc. application for factual discrepancy in orders, request for passing final order by original Bench, rehearing request, jurisdiction to place matter before a specific Bench.

Analysis:
1. The learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant submitted that the matter was initially heard by a specific Bench on various dates and detailed orders were passed on 8th and 9th November, 2011, with arguments concluded. The matter was reserved for pronouncement on 11.1.12, and the Misc. orders were issued on 1.12.11.

2. The appellant was given liberty to file a Misc. application for factual discrepancies, which they did on 6.1.12. However, the orders were not pronounced on the scheduled date. Subsequently, a notice for a fresh hearing was received by the appellant on 19.3.12, causing surprise and additional expenses due to the client's travel from abroad.

3. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the unexpected fresh hearing, citing the extensive prior hearings, reserved orders, and the financial burden involved in rearguing the matter. They requested the original Bench to pass a final order, considering the six-month period since the last argument and in the interest of justice.

4. The Note sheet indicated that the original Bench released the case for hearing the Misc. application and directed the matter to be reheard by the regular Bench dealing with Customs and Service Tax matters, as per the direction of the Hon'ble President.

5. The appellant clarified that their Misc. application did not seek a fresh hearing but only requested personal representation before the Tribunal if a hearing was scheduled. They emphasized that the application aimed at factual clarification rather than introducing new arguments.

6. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in rehearing the appeal and the appellant's request for the original Bench to pass the final order. Due to jurisdictional limitations, the file was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble President for appropriate orders.

7. The appellant highlighted that their application was originally addressed to the Hon'ble President, despite being directed by the Registry to address it to the Hon'ble Registrar. They sought permission to address the matter directly to the Hon'ble President in person, leaving the decision to the learned advocate.

8. The Tribunal disposed of the Misc. application in line with the above terms, emphasizing the need for further orders from the Hon'ble President and providing a copy of the order to the Senior Advocate for reference.