Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd vs Cce,Jaipur-I on 13 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:13.05.2014.
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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 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?
Service Tax Stay Application No.50855/2014 in
Appeal No.ST/50706 of 2014-CU(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.JAI-EXCUS-001-COM-070-13-14 dated 31st October, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise,Jaipur-I).
M/s.Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE,Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance: Rep. by Shri Somesh Arora and Shri Abhisekh Jaju, Advocates for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52215 /Dated:13.05.2014 Per Archana Wadhwa:
As the appellant have already deposited an amount of Rs.1 Crore during investigations and as we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has not followed the principles of natural justice, we, after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amounts, proceed to decide the appeal itself.
2. From the impugned order, it is seen that the appellants have been repeatedly asking for extension to file reply to the show cause notice. The contention of the ld. Advocate is that such requests were being made on account of change in the counsel as also on account of the appellants contentions to procure orders passed by the other Authorities in respect of their distributors. They caused appearance on the dates of personal hearings so fixed by the Commissioner and prayed for extension of time. The Adjudicating Authority without accepting or rejecting their requests for such extensions, passed the order.
3. After hearing the ld. DR, we find that the last date of hearing afforded by the Adjudicating Authority was on 24.10.2013. It is on record that Shri D.K. Rana, Advocate appeared and requested for extension of some more time for filing the reply. There is nothing on record to show as to whether such request was accepted or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order was passed on 31.10.2013 i.e. within a period of 7 days from the last date of hearing.
4. If an assessee has been causing appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on each and every date of hearing so fixed by him, and is making a request for extension of time, the Adjudicating Authority is under a legal obligation to respond to the said request either by extending the period or by rejecting the request. If the Adjudicating Authority was of the view that the appellants are intentionally delaying the proceedings, he could have rejected the request and made the same known to the assessee at the time of hearing on 24.10.2013. Non-communication of the decision, on the said requests, keeps an assessee in dark, who may entertain a view that such request stands granted by the Adjudicating Authority and he would file the reply within the extended period.
5. Having said so, we note that in any case and in any view of the matter, the impugned order stands passed without there being any defence reply on record. As such, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision. Needless to say that the appellant would file a detailed reply on record, which according to the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, is lying ready with them and the Adjudicating Authority would offer reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
6. Inasmuch as, the Revenue involved in the present appeal is much on the higher side, we expect the Adjudicating Authority to conclude the de novo proceedings within a period of 2 months.
7. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1