AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant is in appeal along with application for stay.
Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received. Therefore, matter is taken up for
consideration.
On perusal of the impugned order we find that a demand of service tax of Rs.80,113/- has been confirmed against the appellant treating the
appellant is an agent of an authorized dealer. In fact, appellant is an authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.
As appellant remained unrepresented before the lower authorities, therefore, impugned order has been passed. But, it is a fact on record that the
agreement which is in question was placed before the Ld. Commissioner (A) for his examination, but the Ld. Commissioner (A) has not considered
the said agreement but passed the order holding that as appellant remained unrepresented before the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, grounds taken
at appellant's stage are not considerable. On examining the records placed before us we find that Ld. Commissioner (A) was required to pass order
on merits. After considering the contents of the agreement between the appellant and M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. which Ld. Commissioner has failed to do
so. We also take note of that before the adjudicating authority these facts were not placed by the appellant. In these circumstances, it would be in the
interest of the justice to consign the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue on its own merits after considering the contents of the
agreement placed before the Ld. Commissioner (A) by the appellant.
In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order on
the merits of the case after taking note of the agreement between the appellant and M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Stay applications are also disposed of in
the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)