2018 (8) TMI 422 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 78 - the penalty of ₹ 11,12,040/- approximately stand imposed upon both the said respondents - Held that - It can be seen that the penalty of ₹ 11,12,040/- approximately stand imposed upon both the said respondents. In the absence of use of the Each , it has to be held that the said penalty is not individually imposed upon both the respondents but as a collective penal action against them, thus leading us to conclude that 50% is on Shri Subhash Rajani and 50% on Smt. Nimmi Rajani. If that be so, the Revenue s appeal would be covered by the Litigation Policy. Also appreciating the fact that such imposition of penalties by the Adjudicating Authority jointly on both the respondents is not justified and has been correctly set aside by Commissioner (Appeals). The same should have been specifically imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on each individual separately. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of Mistake Application filed by Revenue regarding dismissal of appeal under Litigation Policy.
2. Amount involved exceeding the limit specified under Litigation Policy.
3. Imposition of penalty without specifying individual names.
4. Joint imposition of penalty on co-owners of property.
5. Correctness of setting aside penalties by Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Applicability of penalty under amended provisions of Section 80.
7. Justification of Revenue's Application.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed a Rectification of Mistake Application concerning the dismissal of their appeal under the Litigation Policy, which was addressed in Final Order No.70075/2018 dated 04/01/2018. The learned A.R. for the Revenue argued that the appeal involved an amount exceeding the limit set by the Litigation Policy, making it admissible despite the penalty being set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Revenue contended that the penalty of approximately ?11,12,040 was collectively imposed on two respondents, Shri Subhash Rajani and Smt. Nimmi Rajani, who were co-owners of the property. As the penalty was not individually specified for each respondent, it was deemed a collective penal action. Consequently, 50% of the penalty was attributed to each co-owner, leading to the conclusion that the Revenue's appeal fell within the purview of the Litigation Policy.

3. The Tribunal noted that the joint imposition of penalties on both respondents was unjustified and correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Additionally, the issue pertained to 'Renting of Immovable Property,' and as per the amended provisions of Section 80, penalties were not applicable if the Service Tax had been deposited within the specified period, which the respondents had complied with. Therefore, there was no basis for imposing penalties in this scenario.

4. Considering the above factors, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's Application and subsequently rejected it. The judgment emphasized the importance of individualized penalty imposition and adherence to statutory provisions when determining the applicability of penalties in tax matters.