Suvichar Construction vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Appeal No. ST/132/11

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 15/ST/2010/C dated 23.11.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) 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?

Suvichar Construction Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur Respondent

Appearance:

Shri L. Badrinarayan, Advocate for appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst.. Commr (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 15/ST/2010/C dated 23.11.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the appellant herein was issued a show-cause notice alleging that the appellant had not paid the service tax liability under the category of Construction of Complex services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. The show-cause notice was also sought to demand interest and imposed penalties. Appellant filed a single page reply dated 14.07.2010 to the show-cause notice and sought time from the adjudicating authority for filing detailed reply to the show-cause notice but they did not do so. The adjudicating authority after waiting for the reply from the appellant proceeded ahead and decided the matter without affording an effective personal hearing. We find from the records that in the Grounds of Appeal, appellant has contested the service tax liability on the so-called services rendered by them. This defence was not raised by the appellant before the adjudicating authority obviously having not filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice.

3. In our considered view, various arguments raised by the learned Counsel needs to be addressed by the adjudicating authority. 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 to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue after following principles of natural justice.

4. The appellant herein is directed to file a detailed reply to the show-cause notice on or before 20th October 2015 stating its defence for the show-cause notice issued for the demand of tax liability and interest thereof. On receipt of such reply the adjudicating authority shall take up the matter for adjudication and preferably pass an order within three months from the date of the reply filed by the appellant.

5. Appeal allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

(Dictated in Court)

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

nsk

??

??

??

??

1 3 Appeal No. ST/132/11