2011 (6) TMI 90 - AT - Service Tax

Demand and penalty - The assessee submitted the show cause notice stands issued to them in respect of interest, without any proposal to impose penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, the second time issuance of the show cause notice in respect of the same import of services, same interest and for the same period, cannot be issued - Revenue cannot adjudicate the matter in piece meals - If at the time of issuance of first show cause notice, Revenue was of the view that no penalty is required to be imposed and as such, there was no proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of penalty, show cause notice for imposition of penalties cannot be issued subsequently - Hence, it fit to set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision - Stay petition as also appeal get disposed off in above manner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of interest and penalty on imported services.
2. Validity of second show cause notice for penalties.
3. Lack of findings by lower authorities on imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported Business Auxiliary Services and advertising services before 18.04.2006, leading to a view by Revenue that the services were taxable. The appellants paid the entire service tax amount following an audit objection. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing to confirm interest, culminating in an order confirming interest payment. No penalty proposal was included in the notice or the order. Another show cause notice was issued later to re-quantify interest and impose penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The original adjudicating authority imposed penalties without discussing the appellants' plea against it.

2. The appellants contended that the second show cause notice for penalties on the same import of services, interest, and period was invalid. They argued that if the Revenue did not propose penalties in the first notice, subsequent issuance for penalties was impermissible. The Tribunal acknowledged the argument but noted the lack of findings by lower authorities on this issue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the appellant's arguments and relevant legal precedents.

3. Despite finding merit in the appellant's argument against the second show cause notice for penalties, the Tribunal highlighted the failure of lower authorities to address this issue. As a result, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the original adjudicating authority to consider the appellant's contentions and legal references. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly, with the case being remanded for further proceedings based on the Tribunal's directions.