CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
Appeal Nos.ST/18/2007, ST/20-22/2007
ST/24/2007 & ST/27/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.74/2006-TRY ST dt. 28.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
1. S.R. Cabs
2. Raj Transports
3. P. Ramadas
4. Vinolia Tourist Cabs
5. R. Sundaramurthy
6. V. Ayyappan
Commissioner of Central Excise, & ST Tiruchirapalli
Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member
Date of Hearing / decision : 14.03.2017
FINAL ORDER No.40496-40501/2017
Per D.N. Panda
Revenue has not produced adjudication order although that was ordered on 31.01.2017 for production today. More than 45 days have expired but there is no response.
2. Ld. D.R. says that necessary communication has been made to ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at Trichy for sending the records to Tribunal and reply thereon is yet to be received.
3. Ld. Counsel says that these are the cases pertaining to Rent-a-Cab services intended to be taxed. Even though appellant submitted a copy of communication made to ONGC by department on 31.12.2001 for consideration of the issue of limitation for the years 2000-01 to 2005-06, that aspect was not dealt in the impugned order. If the appellant is given fair opportunity of hearing and reasoned order is passed on the basis of law settled, appellants may not have grievance and not deprived of the process of justice.
4. Revenue, on the other hand, contends that plea of limitation was neither raised before adjudicating authority nor appellate authority.
5. Heard both sides. Plea of limitation goes to the root of the matter. Relevant facts which germane to the issue are required to be brought to record for ultimate resolution of dispute both on question of facts and law. Therefore, Revenue's plea that issue of limitation was not raised before the authorities below does not get sanction of law since that dispute is alive before Tribunal.
6. Without dilating the matter further, we expect that if these appeals go back to ld. Adjudicating Authority, he shall threadbare examine all aspects of taxability including limitation issue granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
7. The authority granting full opportunity of hearing shall pass appropriate order recording pleadings, evidence and reason of his decision. Since the matters are very old, it is expected that the authority within 6 months of receipt of this order shall pass appropriate order.
8. In the course of hearing, Ld. counsel says that appellant Shri P.Ramadas (Appeal ST/21/2007) has expired in the meantime as per the death certificate issued by the Registering Authority of municipal administration of Kumbakonam Municipality. In such event, appeal of P. Ramadas is abated. Accordingly, that is disposed in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
9. All five appeals are remanded to original authority with the direction above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member Judicial Member