9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 31 - HC - Service TaxPenalty u/s 78 - Whether CESTAT is justified in setting-aside the penalty enhanced by the Commissioner, and restoring the order-in-original - order-in-original does not record any finding of fraud, mis-statement etc., which could have been the basis for acquiring jurisdiction to Commissioner to impose the penalty - There is no evidence produced before the revisional authority or any other authority to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. so as to attract the application of Section 78 - leniency shown by the original authority in terms of Section 80 did not suffer from any illegality and could not have been interfered with by the revisional authority - Tribunal has rightly restored the order of the Assessing Authority
Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Central Excise Act and Finance Act - Setting aside of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act - Suppression of facts to evade service tax - Exercise of revisional power under Section 84 of the Act - Jurisdiction to impose penalty - Application of Section 80 of the Act - Finding of fraud, collusion, misstatement, suppression of facts - Dismissal of appeal by High Court. Analysis: The High Court was presented with a challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excise Act and Finance Act. The main issue revolved around the setting aside of the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, particularly in a case where suppression of facts with the intent to evade service tax was proven against the Respondents. The original order imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, which was later enhanced to Rs. 31,652 by the Commissioner using revisional power under Section 84 of the Act based on the finding of suppression of taxable service value. However, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's order and reinstated the original penalty, citing that the leniency shown by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 80 of the Act was valid and should not have been interfered with by the revisional authority. In a similar case involving a sister concern of the assessee, the Tribunal had previously dismissed the revenue's appeal. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that Section 80 of the Act prohibits the imposition of a penalty under Section 78 in the absence of findings of fraud, collusion, misstatement, or suppression of facts. Since the original order did not establish any such grounds for penalty imposition, the Assessing Authority's decision not to impose a penalty under Section 78 was deemed appropriate. The High Court further noted that there was no evidence presented to prove fraud or misrepresentation, justifying the imposition of a penalty under Section 78. Consequently, the Tribunal's restoration of the Assessing Authority's order was deemed correct, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. Applying the same rationale to the present case, the High Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed. The Court reiterated that the provisions of Section 80 of the Act must be followed, and penalties under Section 78 should only be imposed in cases of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement. Since no such grounds were established in the present case, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the original penalty amount was considered appropriate. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions governing penalty imposition in tax matters.
|
