2024 (9) TMI 924 - AT - Service Tax

Violation of principles of Natural Justice - petitioner neither received the Show Cause Notice nor the notices for personal hearings - time limitation - whether in the facts of the case, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) suffers from any infirmity in deciding the matter by remanding it back to the Original Authority keeping in view of the grounds which were raised by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals)? HELD THAT - The grounds which were raised by the appellant, as discussed in para 4 of the impugned order, covers two broad aspects, firstly, that the demand for the period 2014-15 is time barred and secondly that there is no issue of show cause notice or correspondences etc., as alleged in the Order-in-Original from the Department and therefore there was a clear breach of principles of natural justice in the Order-in- Original. On going through the impugned order, it is found that as far as the first issue is concerned there is a clear finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 is not sustainable and therefore, he has set aside the same as time barred. There is no dispute by the Revenue on this issue. Appellant has also taken into account the grounds of non-receiving the letters of personal hearings as well as not getting the show cause notice and has come to the conclusion that there is a merit in appellant s contention that there is a violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned order was set aside. Therefore, on this count also he has given observations and directions. A plain reading of the impugned order would indicate otherwise as in this case it is obvious that first the Adjudicating Authority is required to decide the issue of serving of proper notice on the appellant and thereafter by way of natural justice an opportunity is also to be extended for appellant to produce all the relevant documents in support of their defence. Thereafter, if the show cause notice has not been served in accordance with the law Original Authority would not be able to proceed further and would be bound by the law including various citations relied by the appellant in this regard. There are no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in remanding the matter back for decision afresh for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 subject to certain observations and directions - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Breach of principles of Natural Justice by the Original Authority, Time bar for demand, Show Cause Notice not received by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order which remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for decision afresh for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017. The main ground raised by the appellant was the breach of principles of Natural Justice by the Original Authority, alleging non-receipt of Show Cause Notice and notices for personal hearings. The appellant argued that without serving the Show Cause Notice, the demand could not be sustained, citing relevant case laws. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, stating that all grounds were addressed, and the matter was remanded reasonably. The Tribunal examined whether the Commissioner (Appeals) order suffered from any infirmity. The Tribunal found that the demand for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 was time-barred and not sustainable, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), with no dispute from the Revenue on this issue.

Regarding the non-receipt of Show Cause Notice, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) considered this ground and observed a violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was a merit in the appellant's contention, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the serving of the Show Cause Notice by the Original Authority before proceeding further in the remand proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that the Original Authority must first decide on the issue of serving a proper notice before requiring the appellant to respond to the notice and submit relevant documents in their defense. The Tribunal concluded that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter back for decision afresh for the specified period was appropriate, with certain observations and directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. It was emphasized that the Original Authority should decide the matter on remand within three months of the issuance of the order. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and disposed of the appeal accordingly.