9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the matter when the Tribunal has relied on its subsequent decision. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 2153 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2015 - A. J. Desai And A. G. Uraizee, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Paresh M Dave, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr RJ Oza, Adv. JUDGMENT ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice A. J. Desai ) 1. RULE. Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are as under: 3.2. That the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat-I, by its Order dated 28.9.2012, disallowed certain Cenvat Credits claimed by the petitioner company. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Division at Ahmedabad. The matter was heard on 26.08.2014, however, the same was decided on 27.11.2014. By the said order, the Tribunal remanded the matter on the basis of it s own decision dated 27.10.2014 with regard to other group of appeals. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, would submit that, though, the matter was heard on 26.8.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was finally heard on 26.8.2014 and the same is decided on 27.11.2014. If the impugned judgment and order is perused, it emerges that the Tribunal has relied upon its own decision dated 27.10.2014. It is equally true that the petitioners had no opportunity to plead their case before the Tribunal whether his case is covered as per the Tribunal s decision dated 27.7.2014 or not. Therefore, in our considered view, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the matter when the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
