2017 (9) TMI 998 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - case of appellant is that the assessee s appeal on the demand has been allowed by the Tribunal which was reported as Inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad 2015 (1) TMI 460 - CESTAT MUMBAI . Therefore the present appeal on penalty which is consequent to the demand also deserves to be allowed - Held that - In the present appeal, the appellant is contesting the penalty related to the same case, which is consequential to the demand. Since the demand case has been decided in favor of the appellant, the present appeal also deserves to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal challenging imposition of penalty corresponding to confirmed demand in original order
- Adjudication of penalty in relation to demand confirmed in original order
- Appeal filed by appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. SK/260/RGD/2013-14
- Consideration of submissions made by both sides
- Decision to set aside impugned order and allow the appeal

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by the appellant challenging the imposition of a penalty corresponding to a demand confirmed in the original order. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand but dropped the penalty. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's appeal, and the Revenue filed an appeal challenging the dropping of the penalty, which was allowed by the Commissioner. This led to the appellant filing an appeal against both the orders. The appellant argued that since the demand case had been decided in their favor in a previous tribunal case, the penalty appeal should also be allowed.

During the proceedings, the appellant's representative, a Chartered Accountant, highlighted the sequence of events and the legal basis for their appeal. The Revenue's representative, the Assistant Commissioner, acknowledged the facts presented by the appellant's counsel. After carefully considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the entire proceedings starting from the original order, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case. The Tribunal noted that the demand case had been decided in favor of the appellant in a previous citation. As the penalty appeal was consequential to the demand case and the demand had been decided in favor of the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty appeal deserved to be allowed.

In their decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. This judgment reflects a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues involved, considering both the demand case and the penalty imposition in a coherent manner. The decision was based on the legal principles established in previous cases and the specific circumstances of the current appeal, ultimately resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant.