2010 (8) TMI 452 - AT - Service Tax

Under section 80 ibid -Appeal is filed by the revenue - Adjudicating authority has waived the penalties on the respondents under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by exercising his discretion under section 80 ibid - As per the decision in the case Kirloskar Power Equipments Ltd. v. CCE 2009 -TMI - 75582 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the revenue is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Adjudicating authority's discretion under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to waive penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Mumbai involved the revenue challenging the adjudicating authority's decision to waive penalties on the respondents under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by exercising discretion under section 80 of the same Act. The revenue contended that the adjudicating authority can only exercise jurisdiction under section 80 if the assessee proves reasonable cause for the failure. The revenue argued that the adjudicating authority did not establish that the respondents had shown reasonable cause to warrant penalty waiver, thus wrongly exercising power under section 80. The revenue relied on case laws to support its position.

On the other hand, the respondents' advocate cited a decision in another case to support their position. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined the submissions and noted that the adjudicating authority, after considering the respondents' submissions, had decided that no penalty was leviable by granting the benefit of section 80. The Tribunal referenced a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case, emphasizing the discretion to reduce penalties under section 80. The Tribunal found that the case laws cited by the revenue were not applicable as they did not involve the exercise of power under section 80 to waive penalties.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to waive penalties after considering the submissions made by the respondents. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had appropriately exercised jurisdiction under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and found no reason to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.