2016 (12) TMI 730 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - Mandate of the statute under section 35A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether controversy is to be decided by the evidence and law applied thereto - Held that - learned Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to deal each item under controversy and testing the evidence in respect of each such item shall apply the law. Appellant is entitled to fair opportunity of hearing in the course of re-adjudication. The authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing each item of the CENVAT credit claimed - appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of proper analysis by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the services availed by the appellants.
2. Failure to follow the statutory mandate under section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Guidelines issued by the Apex Court on writing appellate orders.
4. Direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication and passing a reasoned order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights the concern over the Commissioner (Appeals) not adequately examining the controversy surrounding the services availed by the appellants. The order criticizes the lack of detailed analysis and merely mentions the services without proper scrutiny, indicating a failure to fulfill the legal requirement of thorough examination.

2. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of following the statutory mandate under section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It points out that the controversy should be decided based on evidence and the application of relevant laws, which was not done in this case. The failure to adhere to this statutory requirement is highlighted as a significant issue.

3. The judgment references guidelines provided by the Apex Court on writing appellate orders, emphasizing the importance of clarity, relevance, and coherence in judicial decisions. The guidelines stress the need for a well-structured and informative order that clearly presents the legal reasoning and factual analysis, ensuring readability and interest for the reader.

4. In response to the identified issues, the judgment directs the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the case, thoroughly examining each item under controversy and applying the law to the evidence presented. The appellant is granted a fair opportunity of hearing during the re-adjudication process, with the expectation of a reasoned and detailed order addressing each item of the CENVAT credit claimed. Ultimately, the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings.