2010 (11) TMI 643 - HC - Service Tax

Penalty - Whether the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be reduced below the minimum limit prescribed by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - This Court, in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Port Officer (2010 -TMI - 77834 - GUJRAT HIGH COURT) held that Section 80 of the Act overrides the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 and Section 79 of the Act and provides that no penalty shall be imposable even if any one of the said provisions are attracted, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure stipulated by any of the provisions -further held that on a conjoint reading of Section 76 and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as being vested in the authority to levy penalty below the prescribed limit - Therefore, the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be reduced below the minimum prescribed by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding penalty reduction and imposition for late Service tax payment.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty Reduction Below Prescribed Limit
The appellant revenue challenged an order reducing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 by invoking Section 80 of the Act. The appellant contended that the authority had no discretion to impose a lesser penalty than provided under Section 76. The High Court referred to a previous decision where it was held that Section 80 overrides other penalty provisions and no penalty is imposable if the assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure. The Court emphasized that once a reasonable cause is established, no penalty is imposable, and there is no provision for imposing a reduced penalty. The Court concluded that the authority cannot levy a penalty below the prescribed limit, and appellate bodies cannot reduce the penalty below the minimum prescribed. Therefore, the High Court answered the question in the negative, stating that the penalty under Section 76 cannot be reduced below the minimum limit by invoking Section 80.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Decision and Appeal Outcome
The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reduce the penalty below the minimum prescribed. However, following the High Court's interpretation of the law, the appeal was allowed. The High Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order, restoring the appeal to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the appeal in light of the High Court's decision and provide both parties with an opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the High Court clarified the legal position regarding the reduction of penalties under the Finance Act, emphasizing that penalties cannot be reduced below the prescribed limit by invoking other provisions. The judgment provides guidance for future cases involving penalty imposition and reduction in similar contexts.