2016 (12) TMI 1271 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - legality of revision petition - imposition of penalty u/s 78 of the FA, 1994 - revision petition allowed without affording assessee any opportunity of being heard - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of UMA NATH PANDEY Versus STATE OF UP 2009 (3) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that natural justice is essence of fair adjudication and to be ranked as fundamental. Purpose of following principle of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. Notice and hearing required as per principle of natural justice - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
- Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order
- Applicability of penalty under Section 78 when penalty under Sections 76 & 77 has already been imposed
- Relevant case laws and precedents cited by the appellant

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to impose penalty under Section 78:
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Revision by the Commissioner imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order under Section 84 and issued a Show-Cause Notice after 23 months, violating natural justice principles. Citing case laws like Uma Nath Pandey and Amit Kumar Saha, the appellant contended that the penalty was unjustly imposed without the intention to evade duty. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

Applicability of penalty under Section 78:
The appellant further contended that the imposition of penalty under Section 78 was incorrect since there was no intent to evade duty. Moreover, the appellant argued that the Deputy Commissioner had already imposed penalties under Sections 76 & 77, making Section 78 penalty redundant. Citing cases like Handimann Services Ltd. and JOE Transport, the appellant claimed that Sections 76, 77, and 78 were not mutually exclusive. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and case laws, agreed with the appellant's arguments, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Relevant Case Laws and Precedents:
The appellant supported their arguments with various case laws and precedents such as SAIL, Ganesh Polytex Ltd., and Akbar Travels of India (P) Ltd. The appellant also relied on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in their own case. These cases were cited to establish the appellant's position regarding the lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and the incorrect imposition of penalty under Section 78. The Tribunal considered these case laws while delivering the judgment in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief if necessary.