2014 (2) TMI 484 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty - de-novo adjudication order is passed by the adjudicating authority on the same matter and appellant wants to pursue appeal remedy against that order - Held that - The right of the appellant to contest the de-novo adjudication order in all respects need not be limited because of submission made during oral hearing for withdrawal of appeal filed against imposition of penalty. It was not clear from the submission of the advocate whether the advocate was mentioning tax liability as ordered by Commissioner (Appeal) in order dated 28-09-2012 impugned in this appeal or the tax liability as determined in the de-novo order dated 06-11-2013 of the adjudicating authority. - the present appeal has become infructuous and the same is dismissed accordingly with liberty to the appellant to pursue appeal remedy against the de-novo order.

Issues Involved:
1. Tax liability for man power supply services provided by the appellant to a company.
2. Imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Non-compliance with section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding stay petition.
4. Discrepancy between the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the adjudicating authority regarding tax liability and penalties.
5. Appeal's dismissal as infructuous due to the appellant seeking remedy against a de-novo order by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

1. Tax Liability: The appellant provided man power supply services to a company without paying service tax on time. A demand was confirmed against the appellant for the period in question. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for a specific period but upheld it for the remaining period. The penalties under sections 77 and 78 were also imposed, leading to the appellant filing an appeal against the penalties.

2. Penalties Imposed: The appellant contested the penalties imposed under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The argument revolved around the discrepancy between the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority re-confirmed the original amount, disagreeing with the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) without seeking modification through appeal proceedings.

3. Non-Compliance with Section 35F: The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the appellant not submitting a stay petition as required by section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant justified the non-filing by stating that the penalty amount was yet to be quantified by the adjudicating authority, making the appeal infructuous.

4. Discrepancy in Orders: The adjudicating authority's de-novo order contradicted the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to a discussion on the validity of the penalties and tax liability. The Tribunal refrained from giving a finding on the merit of the adjudicating authority's order, emphasizing the appellant's right to contest the de-novo order separately.

5. Appeal Dismissal: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous since the appellant intended to pursue a remedy against the de-novo order by the adjudicating authority. The appellant was granted liberty to pursue an appeal against the de-novo order separately, clarifying that the current appeal had become redundant.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the tax liability, penalties imposed, procedural compliance issues, discrepancies in orders, and the ultimate dismissal of the appeal as infructuous due to the appellant's pursuit of a remedy against a subsequent de-novo order.

← Previous Next →