2015 (8) TMI 633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.J.Oza, learned Senior Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 19,226, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order No. A/10836/2014 dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), by which the appeal preferred by the respondent - revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad - III has been quashed and set aside and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who confirmed the order passed by the authority. Both the orders have been challenged by the respondent - revenue before the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal. 5.3. The matter was listed for hearing on 06.09.2013 and the same was adjourned on 20.09.2013. On 20.09.2013, the same Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal heard both the sides andthe matter was reserved for orders. 5.4. The petitioner received an order impugned dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Member (Technical) of the Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the respondent revenue came to be allowed. Hence, this petition. 6. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent have filed affidavit-in-reply and there to, affidavit-in-re-joinder has been filed by the petitioner. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner or respondent - revenue and the Member (Technical) of the Tribunal ought not to have heard the matter. In support of his case, he has relied upon the decisions in case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association V. Designated Authority and Ors. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 258 and in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Shiv Raj & Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564 and submitted that the order impugned in this petition be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration. 11. As far as first contention raised by the petitioner is concerned, Mr.R.J.Oza, learned senior advocate, appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that first contention raised by the petitioner is without any basis since a notice, for fre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er was issued notice for the new date of hearing. It appears that one Vipul Patel had received the notice. It is irrelevant whether it is denied by the petitioner that said Vipul Patel is not his employee .Therefore, we are of the opinion that the first contention raised by the petitioner is merit less and is discarded. 15. As far as second contention is concerned, we are of the opinion that when the appeal was already heard and reserved for orders and the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal had directed the registry for re-listing the matter for the certain clarification, the registry ought to have re-listed the matter before the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal and not before the Member (Technical) of the Tribunal. The Member(Technical)....