TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Overturns Order, Stresses Decisions on Merit; Case Remanded for Re-Hearing Under Central Excise Act.</h1> <h3>M/s Reelabs Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Service tax, Mumbai South</h3> The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of a decision based on merit rather than technicalities. ... Rejection of appeal without passing an order on merit despite the fact that the appeal is admitted - it is conceded that in the Order-in-Appeal the name referred by the Commissioner (Appeal) is not matching with the name available in the appeal memo - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that Section 35(A)(4) dictates that the order of the Commissioner disposing of the appeal shall state the points for determination, the decision their on and the reason for such decision and the same provision being equally applicable to service tax matters would also be applied to this case. This is a fit case to allow the early hearing application and taking consent of both the sides we consider it proper to remand the matter to the commissioner to decide the appeal on merit as per provision contained in Section 35(A) (4) of Central Excise Act, applicable to the service tax matter in view of Sub-Section 5 of section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Early Hearing application and the appeal both are allowed. Issues involved: Appeal dismissed on technical grounds, discrepancy in signature on appeal memo and order, remand for re-hearing on merit.The judgment involves a case where the Appellant challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on technical grounds. The Appellant argued that despite admitting the appeal, hearing both parties, and reserving the order, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal without passing an order on merit. The Appellant cited a decision of the High Court of Kerala to support their argument that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely due to technical reasons like the absence of the Proper Officer's signature. The Appellant pointed out a discrepancy between the name in the appeal memo, signed by the Director as the authorized signatory, and the name mentioned in the Commissioner's order. The Appellant requested a remand for re-hearing and a decision on merit based on the facts presented.During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative acknowledged the discrepancy in the names mentioned in the appeal memo and the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 35(A)(4) of the Central Excise Act, which require the order disposing of the appeal to state the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons for the decision. The Tribunal noted that these provisions apply to service tax matters as well. Based on the facts and legal provisions, the Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the early hearing application and remand the matter to the Commissioner for a decision on merit in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.Ultimately, the Tribunal granted the early hearing application, with the consent of both parties, and directed a remand for the Commissioner to decide the appeal on merit as per the provisions of Section 35(A)(4) of the Central Excise Act, which is applicable to service tax matters as per the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a decision based on merit rather than technicalities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
