Adjudication based on a set-aside precedent is unsustainable; delay alone does not vitiate the order unless prejudice is shown.

An adjudication order that relies on a Tribunal ruling already set aside and remanded is unsustainable, because the legal foundation supporting the order no longer exists and reliance on it amounts to an error apparent on the record. Delay in issuing an order after personal hearing does not, by itself, vitiate the decision; interference is warranted only where the delay causes prejudice or affects fairness. The commentary notes that the challenged adjudication was set aside and remitted for fresh decision after hearing, without being influenced by the earlier order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication order was unsustainable for relying on a Tribunal decision that had already been set aside and remanded; (ii) Whether the delay in passing the adjudication order after personal hearing vitiated the order.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication order was unsustainable for relying on a Tribunal decision that had already been set aside and remanded.

Analysis: The impugned order rested on the Tribunal's view in Suzlon Infrastructure for including the value of materials used in the taxable value of service. That foundation had already been effaced by the Bombay High Court, which had set aside the Tribunal's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Once the supporting decision ceased to exist, reliance on it in the adjudication order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable on this ground and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in passing the adjudication order after personal hearing vitiated the order.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority was bound by the CBEC circular directing expeditious communication of the decision after personal hearing. The order did not explain the delay of more than one year after the hearing. The Court noted that delay by itself is not always sufficient to invalidate an order, but prejudice caused by delay may justify interference. In the present case, however, the Court declined to rest the decision on delay because the order was already unsustainable on the first ground.

Conclusion: The Court did not invalidate the order on the ground of delay alone.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned adjudication was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after personal hearing, without being influenced by the earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication founded on a legal precedent that has already been set aside is unsustainable, and delay in passing an order warrants interference only when it causes prejudice or otherwise affects fairness.

---