2010 (9) TMI 542 - AT - Service Tax

Revision order - The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties - The assessees who challenged the same by filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the penalties - A show Cause Notice proposing revision of the order of the adjudicating authority was issued and Revision Order came to be passed , subsequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalties - Section 84(4), state that power of revision cannot be exercised in respect of any issue if an appeal is on such issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) - The impugned order is bad in law as held by the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in UOI v. Inani Carriers (2008 -TMI - 32322 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) - Set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Predeposit waiver and appeal decision.
2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Revision order challenge based on pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).

Predeposit Waiver and Appeal Decision:
The tribunal waived the predeposit of Rs. 1,95,636/- and proceeded to decide the appeal due to the issue being settled in favor of the assessees by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Tribunal. The consent of both sides was obtained to proceed with the appeal at that stage, leading to the waiver of predeposit and the final decision on the appeal.

Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78:
The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties on the assessees under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessees challenged these penalties by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the penalties in an order dated 25-2-10. However, a Show Cause Notice proposing revision of the adjudicating authority's order was issued in March 2009, and the Revision Order was passed in June 2010, after the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalties. The tribunal highlighted that as per Section 84(4), the power of revision cannot be exercised if an appeal on the issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, not only was there an appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), but it had been decided before the revision order was passed. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Tribunal in similar cases, the tribunal held the impugned order as bad in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

Revision Order Challenge based on Pendency of Appeal:
The tribunal emphasized that the power of revision cannot be exercised when an appeal on the issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the revision order was challenged by the appellants after the appeal had been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). Citing precedents from the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Tribunal, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the established legal principles.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai covers the issues of predeposit waiver and appeal decision, imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the challenge to the revision order based on the pendency of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).