2018 (4) TMI 594 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of SCN - Perusal of the impugned order does not provide any head or tail thereof - Held that - When the SCN is read it exhibits the allegations made therein clearly. But that was not examined by the learned Commissioner to exhibit his mind. Writing several pages with reproduction of ELT headlines is irrelevant in justice administration. Approach should be made to bring out the matter in controversy in clear terms to examine the pleadings of both sides as well as evaluate evidence for appreciation and application of law. This is the object of the process of delivery of justice. Such elementary jurisprudence has not been followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Matter remanded back to the learned adjudicating authority to re-hear the matter and re-adjudicate the issue considering the pleadings and evidence of the appellant to reach to a reasoned decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Lack of clarity in impugned order, non-adherence to Supreme Court guidelines, need for re-hearing by adjudicating authority, remand for fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. Lack of Clarity in Impugned Order:
The judgment highlights the lack of clarity in the impugned order, stating that it does not provide a coherent understanding. The tribunal emphasizes the importance of following guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to ensure that quasi-judicial orders are free from ambiguity, infirmity, and incongruity. Reference is made to the guidelines provided in the case of Saheli Leasing & Industry Ltd. The tribunal stresses the significance of maintaining a clear correlation between the facts of the case and the applicable law in the order to avoid confusion.

2. Non-Adherence to Supreme Court Guidelines:
The tribunal criticizes the learned authority below for not giving due weightage to the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. It emphasizes the need for the quasi-judicial and judicial authorities to follow the guidelines to ensure that the order is well-structured, coherent, and legally sound. The judgment underscores the importance of avoiding unnecessary information in the order and maintaining a logical sequence of events to engage the reader's interest.

3. Need for Re-Hearing by Adjudicating Authority:
The tribunal points out that the learned Commissioner failed to exhibit a clear understanding of the show-cause notice and did not adequately evaluate the evidence presented. As a result, the tribunal orders a remand of the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a re-hearing. It stresses the importance of examining the pleadings and evidence thoroughly to reach a reasoned decision. The tribunal directs the Commissioner to follow the Supreme Court guidelines while re-adjudicating the issue.

4. Remand for Fresh Decision:
In conclusion, the tribunal remands the appeal to the learned Commissioner for a fresh decision following the due process of justice. It highlights the necessity of adhering to the principles of justice, examining the matter in controversy clearly, and evaluating the evidence objectively. By emphasizing the importance of following the Supreme Court guidelines, the tribunal aims to ensure that the new decision is made in the interest of justice and upholds legal standards.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised, outlines the tribunal's observations, and clarifies the directives given for the re-hearing and fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.