9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-WZB/C-I (CSTB) dated 12.08.2014 passed by this Tribunal. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted below: "4.1. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, we are of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage and therefore, after waiving the requirement of any pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides, we take up the appeal for consideration and disposal. 4.2. The short question for consideration is whether the ocean freight, currency adjustment charges, bunkering charges, advance manifest charges collected by the appellant on behalf of the shipping lines can be subjected to levy of Service Tax. It is undisputed that most of these charges form part of the transaction value in respect of custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original authority took up the de novo adjudication proceedings and passed the present impugned order dated 29.06.2015. The primarily submissions made by the appellant is to the effect that the principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as no effective personal hearing was granted to the appellant before deciding the matter afresh. In this context, the appellant has referred to the personal hearing notice dated 30.10.2014 and the letter dated 17.11.2014 addressed by the appellant to the adjudication authority. Further, the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted the written note, explaining that the matter has not been adjudicated in line with the remand order passed by the Tribunal. The submissions made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference of show cause notice in question, which was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 29.06.2015. Further, we also find that the personal hearing of the present show cause notice was held on 17.11.2014; whereas, the appellant was asked to furnish the details vide the letter dated 02.02.2015 issued by the department. On this sequence of events, it can be concluded that the de novo adjudication proceedings were not completed in proper manner inasmuch as the findings recorded in the order dated 12.08.2014 of the Tribunal has not been properly adhered to. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter should again be remanded to the original authority for a fresh fact finding on all the issues involved in the case. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
