9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority and directed the appellant to pay back the said amount along with interest and also directed that the same should be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is providing service under the category of Rent-a-Cab operator to Nestle India Ltd. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant in the year 2007 for recovery of the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,03,668/-. 3. After following the due process, demand of service tax was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sangrur vide Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2007. The appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,29,585/- with the department, as of duty, penalty and interest and filed appeal before the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the Ld. Commissioner has not granted them the opportunity of hearing and pass the impugned order ex-parte. 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that admittedly the dates of hearing as mentioned in the show cause notice are 18.01.2011, 20.01.2011, 24.01.2011 and 25.01.2011. She further submitted that the Commissioner has given consecutive dates of hearing in one go. She further submitted that as per the settled proposition of law that if the authority has given consecutive dates of hearing in one go, it will be deemed to be only one opportunity of hearing. For this submission, she relied upon the decision of the Mennakshi Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2009 (245) ELT 362 (Tri. Del.) Wherein Tribunal has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only amount to one opportunity. 11. Further, I do not find any reason not to grant a week's time to the appellant to file reply to the show cause notice. It appears from the impugned order that the Commissioner was bent upon passing the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Further, I find that the Commissioner has not even declined the request of the appellant and has not discussed his request at all in the impugned order. Further, I find that once the nestle has issued the certificate dated 23.01.2009 certifying that during the period 01.01.2005 to 31.10.2006 the appellant has not claimed any service tax from them, therefore, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise, but in the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
