2015 (11) TMI 904 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of Section 80 - Imposition of penalty - Validity of review order - whether the Reviewing authority could have reviewed the order of the adjudicating authority for use of discretionary power under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for dropping the proceedings initiated for imposition of penalties - Held that - Adjudicating authority has exercised his discretionary power under Section 80 for dropping the proceedings to impose the penalty with a reasoned order. The reasoning given by the adjudicating authority are acceptable justification for non-imposition of penalties. - order of Reviewing authority is unsustainable and needs to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reviewing authority's power to impose penalties under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 after adjudicating authority waived penalties under Section 80.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No. 32/STC/SJS/07-08 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. The appellant, registered as an Air Travel Agency, was accused of evading Service Tax. The appellant contended they had discharged the Service Tax liability and paid interest before the show-cause notice was issued. The adjudicating authority confirmed the Service Tax liability but waived penalties under Section 80 due to financial difficulties. However, the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, issued a show-cause notice for imposing penalties under Section 84. The Reviewing authority upheld the penalties, leading to this appeal.

The main contention was whether the Reviewing authority could review the adjudicating authority's decision to waive penalties under Section 80. The appellant argued that the Reviewing authority wrongly exercised powers under Section 84. They cited precedents like KNR Contractors case and Handimann Services Ltd. case to support their argument that once the authority waives penalties based on reasonable cause, it should not be questioned. The Reviewing authority justified penalties by stating the case could have gone undetected without the investigating agency's intervention.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the Reviewing authority's reasoning insufficient. The adjudicating authority had provided detailed justifications for waiving penalties, which were deemed acceptable. Citing the Handimann case and Darmania Telecom case, the Tribunal emphasized that once the original authority decides not to impose penalties under Section 80, the Reviewing authority cannot interfere unless there is evidence of fraud, collusion, or misstatement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Reviewing authority's order and allowed the appeal, directing any consequential relief according to law.