Page 140 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

226 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 226 (Tri. - Kolkata)

IN THE CESTAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA
S/Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
BANSPANI IRON LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., BHUBANESWAR
Final Order No. A/76400/KOL/2019, dated 8-8-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/75319/2015-DB
Adjudication order - Unsigned order - Order also not mentioning date
on which it was passed and handwritten corrections not initialed - Order non-
est in law - Order set aside and matter remanded to original authority for pass-
ing fresh order following due process of law - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994.
[para 4]
Matter remanded
CASE CITED
M.S. Shoes East Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (338) E.L.T. 668 (Del.) — Referred .......................... [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajeev Agarwal, CA, for the Appellant.
Shri A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : P.K. Choudhary, Member (J).] - This appeal is directed
against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Bhubaneswar, whereby demand of service tax has been confirmed along with
interest and penalty.
2. Before we go into the merits of the case, our specific attention has
been drawn to the impugned order which bears no signature of the Ld. Commis-
sioner. It is the submission of the Ld. CA. Sri Rajeev Agarwal appearing for the
appellant that since the document is not signed, it cannot be construed to be a
proper adjudication order. It has been stated that a certified copy of the draft or-
der has been provided by the Superintendent (Adjudication), Bhubaneswar, to
the assessee for pursuing the appeal. For the purpose of signing the fair copy of
the order, since the Ld. Commissioner was not available on the date of commu-
nication of the order due to his transfer, the changes suggested by the Ld. Com-
missioner in the draft order has been duly incorporated in the draft order and a
copy thereof has been provided to the assessee.
3. It has also been stated that neither the draft order nor fair copy of the
order contains date of passing of the order. Moreover, the draft order contains
several handwritten corrections which are not legible, particularly Para nos. 6.3.1
and 6.3.2 therein, and it is not possible to compare with the order copy commu-
nicated to the assessee. Further, the said draft copy only contains initial at the last
page without date and proper signature. It is the contention of the Ld. CA for the
appellant that the handwritten corrections made at various places should have
been initialled at those respective places and the order should bear proper signa-
ture with date in the draft order.
4. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of the Delhi High

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  140