2007 (11) TMI 279 - AT - Service Tax

Tax deposited before issue of SCN Assistant Commissioner dropped the penalty without considering the matter on merit but simply following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner , which was upheld by SC - CCE in exercise of power u/s 84 revised the adjudication order and imposed penalty holding that imposition of penalty equal to tax is mandatory - impugned orders are set-aside and matters are remanded back to the adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues involved: Penalty imposition based on Tribunal's decision, revision of adjudication order by Commissioner, imposition of penalty equal to tax, consideration of facts on merit.

Analysis:
1. Penalty imposition based on Tribunal's decision: The appellant submitted that the Assistant Commissioner dropped the penalty as the tax was deposited before the show cause notice, following a Tribunal decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner. The Commissioner, however, revised the order and imposed a penalty, citing a High Court judgment in CCE v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. The Tribunal found that the penalty was dropped without considering the case on merit, and thus set aside the orders for reevaluation by the adjudicating authority.

2. Revision of adjudication order by Commissioner: The appellant argued that the Commissioner, in exercising power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, imposed a penalty without considering the case's facts on merit. The Tribunal noted that the penalty imposition was solely based on the Tribunal's decision without a proper evaluation of the case's specifics. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matters back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering all relevant factors and legal provisions.

3. Imposition of penalty equal to tax: The appellant contended that the Commissioner imposed a penalty equal to the tax amount, citing a High Court judgment. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not assess the case's merits before imposing the penalty. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the orders and instructed a reevaluation by the adjudicating authority to ensure a fair and lawful decision.

4. Consideration of facts on merit: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, concluded that the penalty imposition lacked a thorough examination of the case on merit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the penalty was dropped merely based on a previous decision without a proper assessment of the specific circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matters for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant facts and legal provisions in penalty imposition cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding penalty imposition, revision of orders, and the importance of considering facts on merit in legal proceedings.