Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering ... vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service ... on 7 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
Stay Petition No. 915/2011
AND
Service Tax Appeal No. 358/2011
(Arising out of the Order-in-Revision No. 4/ST/Commr./2011 dated-10/06/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
=======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
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 :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities ?
M/s. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax-Ranchi
RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Sri K.K. Biswas, Advocate
FOR APPELLANT(S)
Sri A.K. Biswas, Supdt.,(A.R.)
FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 07/04/2014
ORDER NO. FO/A/75139/2014
Per DR.D.M. MISRA
This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs.5,10,273/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76 (not quantified) and penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the Ld. Commr. has passed the order in gross violation of principle of natural justice, in as much as, one Commissioner has heard the appeal and his successor Commissioner has passed the order. He submits that at the threshold, the order is not sustainable in law.
3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue does not dispute the aforesaid facts and he has no objection in remanding the case for fresh adjudication.
4. We find that the appeal itself at this stage could be disposed off. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides and after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, the appeal is taken up for disposal. We find that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded in the impugned order that his predecessor had heard the matter and could not pass the order and on the basis of available records before him proceeded with the case. Prima facie, we find that the said order is contrary with the principle of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the case is remitted to the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) to decide all issues afresh.It is needless to mention that reasonable opportunity of hearing be given to the appellants. All issues are kept open. Both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their favour. The appeal is allowed by way of Remand. S.P. disposed off.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
Sd/- 10/04/2014 Sd/- 09/4/2014
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No. 358/2011
3