2005 (1) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Legality of issuing a corrigendum to enhance penalty without following principles of natural justice.
3. Authority of Adjudicating Authority to make insertions in the order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority initially imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 under these sections. However, a corrigendum was issued stating that the penalty should have been Rs. 81,400 under Section 76, which amounts to Rs. 100 per day under the Provisions of Section 76 of the Service Tax Act. The appellant argued that this correction was not permissible under the statute and referred to the Ministry of Law's opinion on the matter.

2. The legality of issuing a corrigendum to enhance the penalty without following principles of natural justice was a crucial issue in this case. The Ministry of Law's opinion highlighted the importance of acting judiciously in quasi-judicial functions and following the principles of natural justice. The corrigendum issued by the Commissioner of Customs, enhancing the penalty without hearing the parties, was deemed to be invalid as it did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs was considered a quasi-judicial body required to act within the provisions of the law, and the corrigendum was seen as a review of the decision, which was not provided for under the law.

3. Another significant issue was the authority of the Adjudicating Authority to make insertions in the order. The Tribunal held that since there were no provisions in the statute allowing the Adjudicating Authority to make insertions in the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly upheld the corrigendum. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,000 as originally imposed, thereby disposing of the appeal at the stay stage.