2012 (11) TMI 129 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of Penalty for non-payment of Service Tax - Held that - Penalties imposed by the revisionary authority under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by denying the benefit of Section 80 of the Act are set aside, which benefit had been given to the assessee on valid grounds by the original authority - In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with no cost.

Summary

Issues:
- Penalty imposed under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
- Revisionary authority's jurisdiction to revise original authority's decision on penalty
- Benefit of Section 80 of the Act

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, BANGALORE involved an appeal against penalties imposed on the assessee by the revisionary authority under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed a demand of service tax against the assessee but did not impose any penalty under Section 76 or Section 78, granting the benefit of Section 80 of the Act due to sufficient cause for non-payment of service tax. The learned Commissioner revised this decision, imposing penalties under both Sections 76 & 78 after issuing a show-cause notice under Section 84 of the Act.

The key issue raised was whether the revisionary authority had the jurisdiction to revise the original authority's decision to grant the benefit of Section 80 to the assessee. The appellant argued that once the original authority found the case fit for the benefit of Section 80, it was not open for the revisionary authority to revise that decision. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which emphasized that if the authority below had held that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of duty, the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with such orders.

In light of the High Court's ruling, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed by the revisionary authority under Sections 76 & 78 by denying the benefit of Section 80, which had been rightfully granted to the assessee by the original authority. The Tribunal held that the revisionary authority erred in not considering the valid grounds for granting the benefit of Section 80 and allowed the appeal, thereby overturning the impugned order.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the decisions made by the original authority, especially when sufficient cause for non-payment has been established, and highlighted the limitations on the revisionary authority's power to interfere with such decisions.