2010 (10) TMI 129 - AT - Service Tax

penalty waiver of pre-deposit - show cause notice does not disclose any contumacious conduct of the appellant - adjudication order also does not disclose the reason why penalty should be imposed and whether the elements of penal consequence of law are present - adjudication order does not disclose any mala fide of Assessee no penalty shall be exigible in view of the provision contained in Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - cases of the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Waiver of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Finance Act, 1994.

The judgment addresses the grievance raised by the Revenue regarding the waiver of penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in conjunction with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue contended that the first appellate order lacked justification for waiving the penalty. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the first appellate order did not provide reasoning for the waiver. However, the appellant's Counsel countered this by stating that the first appellate order clearly justified the waiver of penalty due to the contentious nature of the Cenvat Credit issue under consideration. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was observed that the show cause notice did not demonstrate any contumacious conduct by the appellant when invoking Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudication order also failed to specify the grounds for imposing a penalty or whether the essential elements for penal consequences were present. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the contentious nature of the Cenvat Credit issue due to the nascent stage of development of the law through the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the waiver of penalty was justified for the period in question. Since there was no evidence of mala fide on the part of the Assessee in the adjudication order, no penalty was deemed payable under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner appeared to have considered all aspects under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and since a beneficial interpretation of the law was feasible based on the circumstances of the case, there was no basis for interfering with the order of the first appellate authority. Consequently, both cases of the Revenue were dismissed based on these findings.