9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 637 - HC - Service TaxImposition of penalty - Tribunal set aside penalty invoking section 80 - Held that - Since the entire amount has already been recovered, there is no liability on the appellant. These reasons perhaps impelled the learned Tribunal to invoke provisions of Section 80 of the Act. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has followed its earlier decisions on the same point and those orders are not stated to have been challenged before any Court of law. - Tribunal exercised the power under Section 80 of the Act irrationally or capriciously - Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Questions of law raised regarding the justification of setting aside penalties by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore. 3. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, regarding the imposition of penalties. 4. Application of Section 80 by the Tribunal in setting aside penalties based on reasonable cause. 5. Assessment of the Tribunal's decision to waive penalties based on specific circumstances and adherence to previous decisions. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the Tribunal's order setting aside the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The questions of law raised included whether the Tribunal was justified in granting relief from penalties without delving into the reasons for their imposition by the original adjudicating authority. The appellant argued that the Tribunal lacked the power to completely waive penalties, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Court noted that Section 80 of the Act provides for the non-imposition of penalties if a reasonable cause is proven by the assessee. The Court highlighted that Section 80 overrides the provisions of Sections 76, 77, and 78, granting the Tribunal the authority to set aside penalties in cases of reasonable cause. 2. The Tribunal's decision to waive penalties was based on the assessee proving a reasonable cause for the failures, as per Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and previous decisions, ultimately setting aside the penalties entirely. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the power to set aside penalties is vested in the Tribunal when a reasonable cause is established. The Court noted that the Tribunal acted within its authority and did not find any legal grounds to interfere with the decision. 3. The Tribunal's rationale for invoking Section 80 was supported by the fact that the entire amount of service tax had already been recovered by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee had expressed willingness to deposit the service tax with interest. As there was no outstanding liability on the appellant, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to apply Section 80. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on specific circumstances and consistent with previous rulings on similar matters, which had not been challenged in any Court of law. 4. Considering the circumstances and the application of Section 80 by the Tribunal, the Court concluded that the Tribunal did not act irrationally or capriciously in setting aside the penalties. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and any pending petitions were also dismissed without costs. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to waive the penalties based on the provisions of Section 80 and the specific facts of the case.
|
