COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. RAMESH ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents are not present.

(2.) There is also no adjournment request. However, the cross objection filed by the Respondents is taken on record. Heard the learned SDR and Shri M. Kannan, learned advocate appearing as amicus curiae in respect of this appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), under which he has annulled the Order -in -Original and has directed the lower authority to adjudicate the show -cause notice afresh after observing the principles of natural justice, after coming to the conclusion that the original authority had passed the Order -in -Original without following the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of personal hearing was offered to the Respondents herein.

(3.) I find that this is a matter relating to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Firstly, Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been made applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is important to note in this regard that non -inclusion of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is deliberate. Therefore, the reference to the said Section in the review order by the Committee of Commissioners is not understandable as, the powers under the said Section 35A is not at all applicable to service tax cases. Secondly, the Commissioner (Appeals) derives his power to hear service tax appeals from the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Sub -section (4) of the said Section 85 reads as under: