2007 (1) TMI 505 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the propriety and legality of penalty enhancement under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI revolves around the question of whether the penalty enhancement under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik, is justified. The initial penalty was imposed by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax Cell) for the non-payment of service tax from April 2000 to June 2003 within the stipulated period. After adjudication, the service tax amounting to Rs. 23,120, interest of Rs. 8,390, and a penalty of Rs. 3,500 were imposed. Subsequently, the Commissioner reviewed the order and enhanced the penalty to Rs. 69,360, comprising the service tax of Rs. 23,120 and an additional penalty of Rs. 46,240 under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The crux of the appellant's argument lies in the contention that there was no valid ground for the penalty enhancement. They highlighted the Special Registration Scheme introduced in October 2004, which exempted penalties if registration and tax payment were completed by October 31, 2004. The appellant, having registered before the scheme's introduction, argued for the extension of this exemption to their case. However, the Commissioner rejected this argument in the impugned order.

In support of their case, the appellant's counsel cited several Tribunal decisions where enhanced penalties were set aside. These included cases such as Sharad Jambhekar & Associates v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik v. Shri Ashish Patil. Additionally, reference was made to decisions like Dewal Tours & Travels v. CCE, Jaipur-II and CCE, Bhopal v. Bhojpur Club, which further supported the appellant's position.

After considering the arguments from both sides and the precedents cited, the Judicial Member, T. ANJANEYULU, found merit in the appellant's case. Given the payment of the original penalty and the principles established in the referenced decisions, the Judicial Member waived the pre-deposit and granted a stay on the penalty's recovery pending the appeal's disposal. The application was allowed, providing relief to the appellant.