9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 606 - AT - Service TaxEnhancement of penalty u/s 78 of FA - HELD THAT - It is noticed from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the entire proceeding has been set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently no demand and penalty survived. Since no penalty survived on account of order dated 16.02.2023 the question of enhancing penalty vide order dated 28.02.2023 does not arose. The subsequent order enhancing the penalty imposed is, therefore, totally wrong and passed by mistake due to non-production of earlier order dated 16.02.2023. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order impugned enhancing the penalty under section 78 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Issues:
1. Change in cause title from Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur to Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, NCRB Building, C-Scheme, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Appeal filed against order-in-appeal No. 69 (RLM) ST/JPR/2023 dated 01.03.2023. 3. Validity of demand of service tax, interest, and penalty under sections 77(1)(a), 77(2), and 78. 4. Observations regarding issuance of show cause notices and invoking extended period under section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994. 5. Application of legal principles from previous judgments regarding extended period of limitation. 6. Appeal against the order enhancing the penalty under section 78 subsequent to the order dropping demand and penalties. Analysis: 1. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for changing the cause title from Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur to Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, NCRB Building, C-Scheme, Statue Circle, Jaipur. This administrative change was permitted. 2. The appeal was filed by M/s Ganpati Plaza Owner's Maintenance Society against order-in-appeal No. 69 (RLM) ST/JPR/2023 dated 01.03.2023. The case was heard by the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal reviewed the facts of the case, where an order-in-original confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties under various sections against the appellant. Both the appellant and the Revenue challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the entire demand and penalties based on observations related to the issuance of show cause notices and invoking the extended period under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) made specific observations regarding the issuance of show cause notices and the invocation of the extended period under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Legal principles from Circulars and previous judgments were cited to support the decision to set aside the demand and penalties. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced legal principles from previous judgments, such as ECE Industries Limited and Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd., to establish that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when show cause notices on similar issues have been dropped earlier. This principle was crucial in deciding the case. 6. In a separate order, the Revenue appealed to enhance the penalty under section 78, subsequent to the order dropping the demand and penalties. However, the Tribunal found that since the earlier order had set aside the demand and penalties, the subsequent order enhancing the penalty was erroneous and set it aside. The appeal against the order enhancing the penalty was allowed. This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, including the change in cause title, validity of demand and penalties, observations on show cause notices, application of legal principles, and the appeal against the order enhancing the penalty.
|
