2016 (12) TMI 1390 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction of Commissioner - power of revision of commissioner when the issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) - imposition of penalty u/s 78 of FA, 1994 - natural justice - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of M/s Federal Bank Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Cochin 2016 (12) TMI 1271 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that natural justice is essence of fair adjudication and to be ranked as fundamental - the Commissioner has no power to revision under Section 84 when the issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed - penalty set aside - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The appellant, a Government Company engaged in manufacturing Transformers and allied items, was issued a Show-Cause Notice demanding duty amount along with interest and proposing penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Section 76. Subsequently, the Commissioner invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 84 and imposed an equal penalty under Section 78 for suppressing material facts with the intention to evade service tax.

2. Legal Arguments:
The appellant challenged the Order-in-Revision on the grounds that the Commissioner lacked the power to revise under Section 84 while the issue was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was argued that since penalty under Section 76 had already been imposed, penalty under Section 78 was not permissible as both penalties were not mutually exclusive. The appellant also cited a previous decision by the Tribunal in a similar case, where the appeal was allowed based on various judicial precedents.

3. Judgment and Decision:
After hearing both parties and considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to its previous decision in a similar case involving M/s Federal Bank Ltd. and allowed the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted consequential relief, if any, based on the precedent and legal principles established in the cited case.

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal, following the precedent and established legal principles, allowed the appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and previous judicial decisions, providing relief to the appellant based on the legal arguments presented and the specific circumstances of the case.