CESTAT Remands Refund Claim for Fresh Adjudication Over Violation of Natural Justice; & Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order [Read Order]
The tribunal noted that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) could produce any record showing when or how the notice was sent to the company
![CESTAT Remands Refund Claim for Fresh Adjudication Over Violation of Natural Justice; & Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/21/2066861-refund-claim-rejected-scn-cestat-order-for-natural-justice-violation-taxscan.webp "CESTAT Remands Refund Claim for Fresh Adjudication Over Violation of Natural Justice; & Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order [Read Order]")
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an ex-parte order denying a refund claim to the appellant by noting that the company was not given a proper opportunity to present its case, violating the principles of natural justice. In this case, the assessee, Shayona Pulp Conversion Mills Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the order passed...
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an ex-parte order denying a refund claim to the appellant by noting that the company was not given a proper opportunity to present its case, violating the principles of natural justice.
In this case, the assessee, Shayona Pulp Conversion Mills Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Nashik.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
Coming to the facts of the present case, the adjudicating authority rejected the appellant’s refund claim without a hearing, prompting the company to appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original decision, but CESTAT stepped in after noting glaring gaps in the process.
The tribunal observed that while the authorities claimed to have issued a hearing notice with three dates, March 26, 27, and 28, 2019, they insisted they never received any such notice. The company even wrote to the adjudicating authority in May 2019, asking for proof of delivery, but no evidence was provided.
The bench further observed that ‘Justice need not only be done but must also be seen to be done.’ The tribunal noted that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) could produce any record showing when or how the notice was sent to the company. With no proof of delivery, the tribunal concluded that the appellant had been denied a fair chance to defend its claim.
The bench directed the appellant to cooperate with the adjudicating authority by attending a personal hearing whenever it is fixed by the said authority and submitting documents/case laws they wish to rely upon.
The judicial member, Ajay Sharma, set aside the earlier orders and sent the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh hearing.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
