9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) dated 20.12.2023 whereby the Order-in-Original passed by the Original Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back to Original Authority for decision afresh for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 after observing the principles of natural justice (impugned order). 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant s main ground is that in this case there is a clear breach of principles of Natural Justice by the Original Authority, as they had neither received the Show Cause Notice nor the notices for personal hearings. He further states that all these grounds were taken up before the Commissioner (Appeals), however, the Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that there is a clear cut time bar for demand for the period during 04/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how 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, I find 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. 6. As far as the second ground is concerned, I find that he 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 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 8. Therefore, I do not find any 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. 9. Learned Advocate also points out that the Original Authority has not decided the matter on remand so far and therefore it is expected that the Adjudicating Authority would take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
