2012 (9) TMI 75 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - suo motu revision of order passed by learned Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 imposing penalty under section 77 of the said Act followed by penalty under Section 78 Held that - Appellant is not educated person. He did not find any cogent reason to have belief that no payment of tax was intentional and there was suppression of fact with intent to evade payment thereof. He did not notice such aspect while concluding adjudication - no necessity to appreciate the revisional order where the authority has only mechanically concluded that penalty ought to have been imposed. It appears that his order is indication of redundancy for which that is bound to be set aside. The appellant succeeds and appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 without deliberate breach of law causing loss to Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose against the revision of an order imposing penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show-cause notice did not indicate any deliberate or intentional breach of law by the appellant to cause loss to Revenue. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the appellant voluntarily discharged the tax liability and was not an educated person. The authority found no reason to believe that non-payment of tax was intentional or that there was any suppression of facts to evade payment. The authority's thorough examination of facts indicated that the penalty imposition was mechanical and redundant, leading to the decision to set it aside. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant arrived after the order was dictated due to being stuck in a traffic jam. The Tribunal had already disposed of the matter by the time he reached. The counsel requested that his attendance be recorded, which was allowed by the Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of a detailed examination of facts before imposing penalties under the Finance Act, ensuring that penalties are not imposed mechanically without evidence of deliberate breach of law causing loss to Revenue. The case also demonstrates the significance of procedural fairness, as evidenced by allowing the counsel's request for recording his attendance due to unforeseen circumstances.