2012 (6) TMI 163 - AT - Service Tax

Revisionary order - tax demand Held that - in the case of UOI v. Inani Carriers reported in 2009 (2008 - TMI - 32322 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - Service Tax) , once the appellate power has been exercised, exercise of revisionary power is not acceptable to law on the same controversy

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.
2. Tax demand arising from revisionary order passed by the Commissioner.
3. Jurisdictional conflict between the first appellate authority and the revisionary authority.
4. Legal principle of finality in appellate and revisionary proceedings.
5. Pre-deposit requirement and its dispensation.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay:
The judgment addresses an 8-day delay in filing the appeal, which the appellant explains reasonably. The Tribunal condones the delay and allows the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay.

2. Tax demand arising from revisionary order:
The appellant challenges a revisionary order by the Commissioner resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 77,545. The Commissioner exercised jurisdiction after the first appellate authority's decision, which had reached finality. The Tribunal notes that the controversy pertains to the same cause of action and amount, emphasizing the importance of finality in such matters.

3. Jurisdictional conflict between authorities:
The Tribunal highlights a jurisdictional conflict between the first appellate authority and the revisionary authority. It references a legal precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, emphasizing that once appellate power is exercised, revisionary power on the same controversy is not acceptable under the law. The Tribunal finds that both the show cause notice and the revisionary order relate to the same amount, reinforcing the need for coherence in legal proceedings.

4. Legal principle of finality in proceedings:
Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal dispenses with the requirement of pre-deposit and sets aside the impugned order. It follows the legal principle that when the first appellate authority's order attains finality without appeals from either party, that order prevails. This decision aligns with the established legal principle of finality in appellate and revisionary proceedings.

5. Pre-deposit requirement and its dispensation:
In light of the legal analysis and the finality of the first appellate authority's order, the Tribunal decides to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement. This decision is in line with the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and ensures procedural fairness in the appeal process.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi underscores the importance of procedural compliance, jurisdictional clarity, and adherence to legal principles in tax matters.