2015 (11) TMI 1490 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalty - Held that - The basic contention of the Appellants is that Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has not applied his mind and has issued a non-speaking order and the penalty imposed on the Appellants is unjustified and unsustainable. - a perusal of the OIA reveals that the commissioner (Appeals) has examined the circumstances of the case and has taken a conscious decision to uphold the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on well reasoned grounds - no reason to interfere with the OIA - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against penalty upheld by Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
1. Non-appearance of Appellants: The appellants did not appear for the hearing despite multiple opportunities granted. The Authorized Representative pointed out that the appellants had been given ample chances, with the last one being granted as a final opportunity. The Registry issued a notice for the next hearing, but it was returned as the premises were locked.

2. Grounds of Appeal: The main contention of the Appellants was that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not properly consider the facts and circumstances of the case and issued a non-speaking order. They argued that the penalty imposed was unjustified and unsustainable. However, upon examination of the Order-in-Appeal (OIA), it was found that the Commissioner had made a conscious decision to uphold the penalty on well-reasoned grounds.

3. Reasoning for Upholding Penalty: The OIA highlighted that the Government had simplified tax laws to create a taxpayer-friendly regime. The appellants were registered assesses who failed to provide documents for audit, causing avoidable delays. The Commissioner emphasized that the penalty of Rs. 200 per day for delay was nominal considering the economic conditions. The OIA concluded that the appellants' actions were deliberate, and no leniency was warranted. The Commissioner found no justification to reduce the penalty further.

4. Decision: After reviewing the submissions and the OIA, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority based on the detailed reasoning provided in the OIA.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the penalty upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had made a well-reasoned decision considering the circumstances. The appellants' failure to provide necessary documents for audit was deemed deliberate, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified and should not be reduced. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found no grounds to interfere with the decision and upheld the penalty.