9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uhan, Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : N. Kumar, J.]. - This Excise Appeal questions the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 6th July, 2015 whereby the Tribunal has upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority imposing service tax liability upon the appellant on transport of goods by road received by the appellant for the period in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the declaration that was being sought was not justifiable as the appellant having discharged its burden, there was nothing to the contrary to deny exemption. 4. The substantial questions therefore raised are that the finding of the Tribunal being based on requirement of irrelevant material is perverse without considering the fact that the transport agencies were not registered dealers wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp;Secondly, we also do not find any valid reason to reject the request for adjournment on account of non-availability of the counsel and therefore the Tribunal appears to have proceeded without a proper opportunity of hearing. It is not the case of the department that the appellant had indulged into any excessive adjournment or was deliberately trying to delay the hearing of the appeal. This was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al justice adversely affecting the appellant which is clearly raises a substantial question of law. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent department submitted that the appeal be disposed of at this stage itself without waiting for any issuance of notices as it only involves a legal question on the facts as disclosed in the impugned order. 9. We have therefore proceeded to hear the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
