9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 340 - AT - Service TaxCivil Construction Service - Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Bar of limitation - Held that - appellants are not disputing the duty or interest amount and in fact they had paid the same and also paid the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. They are only disputing the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. There was a delay of one day in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. Since the matter has not been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in filing appeal.
Analysis: 1. The case involved the appellants providing Civil Construction Service. The original authority confirmed a demand, interest, and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant paid the duty, interest, and a penalty under Section 77 but disputed the penalty under Section 78. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed it due to a one-day delay in filing without any application for condonation of delay. 2. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not dispute the duty or interest amount, having paid them along with the penalty under Section 77. The sole contention was against the penalty under Section 78. Acknowledging the one-day delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. As the Commissioner (Appeals) did not assess the matter on its merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed examination of the issue on its merits. 3. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the penalty under Section 78 by the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure a fair and just decision in the case. 4. The judgment, delivered by P K Jain, J., highlighted the importance of due process and the need for a comprehensive review of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, underscoring the significance of addressing issues on their merits for a just resolution.
|
