Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M.G. Motors vs C.C.E. & Cus., Alwar on 22 July, 2016

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi



COURT-I



 Date of hearing/decision:22.7.2016



Service Tax Appeal No.50430 of 2016



Arising out of  the order in  original No.ALW-EXCUS-O-IO-COM-25-15-16 dated 11.12.2015  passed by Commissioner, Central Excise & Custom, Alwar (Raj.).



For Approval and Signature:



Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President

Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member

 

1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
  No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
 No
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
 Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
 Yes


































M.G. Motors						..		Appellant



Vs.



C.C.E. & Cus., Alwar				.	             Respondent

Present Shri Shailendra Vijay, Advocate for the appellants Present Shri K. Poddar, A.R. for Revenue Coram: Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Final Order No. 52537/2016 Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra:

Shri Shailendra Vijay, ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the original authority has passed the order ex parte. He submits that due to personal reason, the assessee could not attend in the proceeding before the original authority. The original authority held that opportunities were provided but the assessee was not serious to attend.

2. After hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee, it appears that the assessee has not attended the proceedings before the original authority for one reason or on other. By keeping in view the above stand, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the appellant should be given a chance to defend its case. Ld. Counsel also submits that the appellants have documents and will cooperate with the original authority. If the assessee does not cooperate, the Commissioner will get the order passed on merits.

3. In view of the above, the original authority is directed to decide the case on merits within four weeks. The assessee will cooperate with the lower authority. The appeal is disposed of as above.

(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member scd/ 2