2018 (5) TMI 566 - HC - Service Tax

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside the penalty as being unwarranted? Held that - the present case stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, DivisionIV V. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited, 2017 (10) TMI 82 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT arising out of the very same impugned order, wherein this court has answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Central Excise Act and Finance Act - Substantial question of law regarding setting aside penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order dated 20.01.2017 by the Tribunal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, questioning the substantial error of law in setting aside the penalty. The court noted that a similar controversy was resolved in a previous decision of the court in Tax Appeal No.761 of 2017 on 28.09.2017, favoring the assessee. The court found that the impugned order did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the previous decision.

This judgment revolves around the interpretation of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994 concerning the setting aside of a penalty. The appellant sought to challenge the Tribunal's order by raising a substantial question of law. However, the court referred to a previous decision in a similar case where the question was resolved in favor of the assessee. As a result, the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The court's decision was based on the principle that the controversy in the present case had already been settled in a prior judgment related to the same issue. The court emphasized that the earlier decision, which favored the assessee, provided the necessary clarity on the legal question at hand. Consequently, the court concluded that the impugned order did not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring intervention. As a result, the appeal was rejected, maintaining the consistency with the previous ruling.