Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

March 2015

2014 (36) STR 1083 (Tri. – Del.) Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to respond to the request of assessees for extension for filing reply to SCN, specifically when the assessee appeared at each personal hearing.

Facts:
The appellants had asked repeatedly for extension to file reply to SCN on account of change in counsel and also in order to procure orders passed by other Authorities in respect of their distributors. During personal hearings, they appeared and prayed for extension of time. The Adjudication Authority, without accepting or rejecting their requests, passed ex parte order.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that as per recording of personal hearing, the appellants appeared and requested for extension of time to file reply to SCN. There was nothing on record regarding acceptance or rejection of such request from the Adjudicating Authority. If the assessee appears at each hearing and requests for extension of time, Adjudicating Authority is under a legal obligation to respond to the said request either by extending the period or by rejecting the request. Noncommunication regarding such request may be regarded as acceptance by the assessee. Since in the present case, principle of natural justice was violated, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2014 (36) STR 1054 (Tri. Del.) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur

2014 (36) STR 1122 (Tri.-Mumbai) Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Pune-III.