Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Gokulnath Construction Company vs Cce & St, Jaipur I on 1 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2016. DATE OF DECISION: 01/03/2016. Service Tax Stay Application No. 54202 of 2014 in Appeal No. 53764 of 2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-001-COM-141-13-14 dated 11/04/2014 passed by The Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur I.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? M/s Gokulnath Construction Company Appellant Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur I Respondent
Appearance Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Rajeev Gupta, Authorized Representative (AR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 50936/2016 Dated : 01/03/2016 Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The appellant is in appeal alongwith an application for a stay against the impugned order confirming demand against them under the commercial and industrial construction services and maintenance and repair services.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order is an ex-party order and have not considered the defence reply filed by the appellant on 19/12/2011, therefore, impugned order deserves no merits and be set aside. On the other hand, learned AR submits that the appellant never cooperated with the authority below and did not file reply within time, personal hearing was also fixed, the appellant did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Heard the parties considered their submissions.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of argument produced a letter dated 19/12/2011, wherein they sought adjournment for a personal hearing which was fixed for 23/12/2011 with preliminary reply to the show cause notice. A receipt to that effect has already been produced before us. The said preliminary reply has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. In that circumstances, we hold the learned Adjudicating Authority has violated the principles of natural justice. In that circumstances, impugned order deserves no merits and hence set side. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to the appellant to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on or before 31st March, 2016 for fixing a date of personal hearing in the matter and thereafter the Adjudicating Authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the defence reply of the appellant. With these observations stay application as well as appeal are disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3