2012 (2) TMI 368 - AT - Service Tax

Whether power u/s 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be exercised by Revisional Authority during pendency of the appeal before Commissioner Held that - Issue which is pending before the first Appellate authority, shall not be subject to revision jurisdiction u/s 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 during pendency of appeal before the Commissioner.
2. Validity of notice issued under Section 84 of the Finance Act during appeal proceedings.
3. Requirement of pre-deposit during pendency of appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 during pendency of appeal before the Commissioner

The appellant's counsel argued that the Revisional Authority cannot exercise power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner. This argument was supported by citing relevant case laws such as Union of India vs. Inani Carriers and Shiva Builders vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal's order in a similar case was also mentioned, which was upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It was contended that when the law is well settled, the impugned order is not sustainable.

Issue 2: Validity of notice issued under Section 84 of the Finance Act during appeal proceedings

The appellant's counsel highlighted that a notice under Section 84 of the Finance Act was issued by the Revisional Authority during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner. The notice proposed a demand of Rs.7,78,560, which was the subject matter of the ongoing appeal. The Revenue representative argued that the notice was issued based on the appellant's statement that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner. However, both parties agreed to work out the pending issues before the Commissioner to resolve the controversy.

Issue 3: Requirement of pre-deposit during pendency of appeal

The Tribunal observed that due to the pending issues and the controversy regarding the notice issued under Section 84 of the Finance Act, there shall be a waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal proceedings. This decision was made to ensure fairness and allow the resolution of the issues before the Commissioner without additional financial burden on the appellant.

Overall, the judgment focused on the proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Revisional Authority, the validity of the notice issued during the appeal proceedings, and the necessity of waiving pre-deposit to facilitate the resolution of pending issues.