Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hi-Tech Services vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 6 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO.ST/578/10
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.AKP/230/NSK/2010 dtd.29.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs(A), Nasik )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.Sahab Singh, Member(Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. Hi-Tech Services
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Venketesh Iyer, Advocate for Appellant
Shri A.K.Prabhakar, Supdt.(A.R.) for Respondents
CORAM:
Mr.Sahab Singh, Member(Technical)
Date of hearing: 06/07/2012
Date of decision 06/07/2012
ORDER NO.
Per : Sahab Singh
This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable service of management, maintenance and repair services specified under Sec.65(64) of Finance Act, 1994 in relation to servicing of conveyor belts and equipments, maintenance of coal flow of various vibrating feeder hoppers and feeder chutes to M/s. Nashik Thermal Power Station. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 2,90,793/- for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl.Commissioner confirming the service tax amount of Rs. 2,90,793/- and also imposing penalty of Rs. 2,90,793 under Sec.78 and penalty of Rs. 2000/- under Sec.77 of the Finance Act. The Order-in-Original was confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order and the appellants are in appeal before this tribunal against the impugned order.
3. The Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the show-cause notice was issued to them and they have submitted reply to the show-cause notice to the original adjudicating authority and the personal hearing was granted to them on 12.03.2010 and the appellants did not attend the same and requested for postponement of personal hearing for a fortnight. Again a personal hearing was given on 24.03.2010 and the appellants did not respond to that hearing. He submitted that under the law they are eligible to get three personal hearing but in this case after the last date of hearing on 24.03.2010 the case was adjudicated by the original authority on 31.3.2010 without hearing the appellants. He, therefore, submitted that principles of natural justice have not been observed by the original authority and this fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) did not consider this submissions of the appellants.
4. The Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
5. After hearing both sides, I find that this is a fact that personal hearing in the present case by the original authority was given on 12.3.10 and 24.3.2010. The first hearing was not attended by the appellants and they requested for adjournment and the second hearing was granted to them only on 24.3.10 which was not attended by the appellants. Therefore, I find that the Order-in-Original was passed by the original authority on 31.3.2010 within a week of the last date of hearing without hearing the appellants. I also take note of the fact that the entire service tax amount involved in this case has already been deposited by them. Therefore, I find that principles of natural justice were not observed by the original authority while passing the Order-in-Original. I, therefore, remand the case back to the original authority for deciding the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.
6. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
Sahab Singh Member(Technical) pv 3