2009 (6) TMI 70 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Adjournment Request Denied; Stay Application Rejected on Procedural Grounds

SV. AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's request for adjournment due to misunderstanding of hearing dates and Tribunal procedures. The stay application was ... Appeal against the order of Commissioner (appeals) – held that - Merely because the representative of the appellant has chosen to have the hearing of the matter beyond a particular date that is not binding on the Tribunal. Hence the grievance disclosed in the letter of the representative of the appellant is devoid of any substance and on that ground the matter cannot be adjourned any further. - it is necessary for the party to make necessary arrangements either to appear in person or through its representative on appointed date - The order passed by the original authority as well as the impugned order apparently disclose that the activities carried out by the appellant comprises of all the essential functions which are normally performed by Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Being so, we do not find any prima facie case as such for grant of stay of the impugned order Issues:1. Adjournment request for hearing dates.2. Misunderstanding regarding Tribunal proceedings.3. Stay application and its prima facie case.4. Maintainability of appeal under Section 86.Analysis:1. The appellant's representative requested adjournment for hearing dates citing unavailability due to health reasons. The Tribunal noted the representative's confusion, treating hearing dates as 'appointments' and addressing letters to the Assistant Registrar. The Tribunal refrained from advising on procedural matters but emphasized that hearing dates are set by the Tribunal's decision, not at parties' will.2. The Tribunal highlighted the representative's misconception about the nature of Tribunal proceedings, clarifying that hearings are not akin to meetings with clients. The Tribunal urged the Chartered Accountant to familiarize himself with the Tribunal's functioning procedures before corresponding further.3. Regarding the stay application, the Tribunal reviewed the activities of the appellant, resembling those of Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Finding no prima facie case for granting a stay on the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Additionally, the Tribunal raised doubts on the appeal's maintainability under Section 86, as orders under Section 83 of the Finance Act may not be appealable to the Appellate Tribunal.4. Considering the legal provisions under Section 86, which do not specify orders under Section 83 of the Finance Act as appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal questioned the appeal's maintainability. Ultimately, as no case was established, the Tribunal dismissed the application for stay based on the lack of substance in the representative's grievance and the absence of a prima facie case for granting a stay on the impugned order.