Appellate Tribunal orders remand for fresh consideration due to lack of discussion on relevant judgments in order.

The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration due to the lack of discussion on relevant judgments in the operative part of the order, rendering it non-speaking. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's right to contest in adherence to natural justice principles and directed the Commissioner to decide the case within four months from the order's receipt, allowing the appeals and stay applications by remanding for de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of contentions by the Commissioner and passing of ex parte orders.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding the supply of work sheet.
3. Lack of discussion on judgments in the operative portion of the order.
4. Justification for remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal arose from a common Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner dismissed the appellant's contentions and confirmed the Asst. Commissioner's order. The Commissioner provided multiple opportunities for the appellant to present their case, but due to the Managing Director's unavailability and the Counsel's adjournment requests, the orders were passed ex parte.

2. The appellant raised concerns about the violation of natural justice as the work sheet for the tax calculation was not provided despite requests. The appellant's Counsel assured the bench of appearing before the Commissioner to argue the matter, emphasizing previous judgments in their favor. They pointed out that although the Commissioner noted relevant judgments, they were not discussed in the operative part of the order, making it non-speaking.

3. The SDR contended that the appellant's adjournment letter did not mention the Managing Director's absence and highlighted that the dispute was primarily about the penalty amount, not the Service Tax calculation. In response, the Counsel mentioned the deposit of Rs. 8.5 lakh and committed not to seek a refund until the appeal's disposal by the Commissioner.

4. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that while the Commissioner was justified in proceeding due to the appellant's missed opportunities, the lack of discussion on citations in the operative part rendered the order non-speaking. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, emphasizing the appellant's right to contest in adherence to natural justice principles. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to decide the case within four months from the order's receipt, allowing the appeals and stay applications by remanding for de novo consideration.

---