Court sets aside order due to delay, emphasizes fairness and remits for fresh adjudication.

The court set aside the impugned order made under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, solely due to the significant delay of over 20 months in issuing the order after the personal hearing. Emphasizing procedural fairness and timeliness, the court remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication process. The respondent was directed to conduct a new personal hearing, consider objections raised, and pass orders within eight weeks from the court's directive, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the impugned order under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994.
2. Delay in passing the impugned order after the personal hearing.
3. Application of circular No.1053/2/2017-CX regarding communication of orders and transfer of adjudicating authority.
4. Need for remitting the matter back to the respondent for redoing after affording an opportunity of personal hearing afresh.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the validity of the impugned order made under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, pertaining to service tax. The petitioner challenged the order dated 26.07.2018, arguing that it was served after a delay of more than 20 months from the personal hearing held on 15.11.2016. The court acknowledged that the impugned order was made under the powers conferred by Section 37A of the Central Excise Act, 1994, as applied to Service Tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The court highlighted the significant delay between the personal hearing and the date of the impugned order, exceeding 20 months. Referring to circular No.1053/2/2017-CX issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the court emphasized the importance of timely communication of orders after personal hearings, with a maximum permissible delay of one month, barring exceptional circumstances. The circular also outlined the protocol for transfer of adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need for the successor to offer a fresh hearing before deciding the case.

3. Considering the substantial delay and the procedural lapses in communication and transfer of adjudicating authority, the court deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the respondent for a redo. The court ordered the respondent to offer a fresh personal hearing to the petitioner, consider the objections and materials presented during the hearing, and pass orders afresh. The court directed the respondent to complete this process expeditiously within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.

4. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2018 solely on the ground of delay in issuing the order after the personal hearing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and timely resolution in matters concerning service tax, ensuring that parties are afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case and respond to the allegations against them.

---