Shriram Buildcon P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Nagpur

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 13/ST/2010/C dated 16-11-2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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 : No 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?

====================================================== Shriram Buildcon P. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Nagpur Respondent

Appearance: Shri Akshay Paranjape, C.A. for Appellant Shri A.B.Kulgod, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 02/09/2015 Date of Decision : 02/09/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 13/ST/2010/C dated 16-11-2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the services rendered by the appellant under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and Construction of Residential Complex Services. After undertaking detailed investigation, show cause notice dated 19.04.2010 was issued for the demand of service tax liability, interest thereof and proposal for imposition of penalties under various sections.

4. On perusal of the records, we have been correctly pointed out by both sides the order in-Original has been passed ex-parte. We also notice that the appellant had not submitted any reply to the adjudicating authority. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority could have accorded another opportunity to the appellant for filling detailed reply to the show cause notice and also an opportunity for personal hearing. It is to be noted that show cause notice was issued on 19/04/2010, giving 30 days time for reply to such show cause notice. We find that the adjudicating authority had disposed of the matter after granting only one personal hearing on 27.07.2010, after recording that none appeared for the appellant and that P.H. notice is returned by portal authorities. Suffice to state that wherein duty liability is fastened on assessee, it is imperative that the adjudicating authority should follow principles of natural justice; we hold that the impugned order passed is ex-parte and needs to be set aside. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue after following the principles of natural justice.

5. We also find that the appellant has been callous is not filling the reply before the adjudicating authority.

6. We direct the appellant should file the reply within six weeks, definitely not later than 13 October 2015. Adjudicating authority on receipt of such a reply shall take up the matter for disposal and after following principles of Natural justice; arrive at conclusion after considering the submissions of the appellant.

7. The appeal is disposed of as indicated herein above by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

(Pronounced in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

akp 1 3 APPEAL No. ST/131/11-Mum