2017 (10) TMI 513 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/r 15(1) of CCR, 2004 - though the SCN proposed penalty u/r 15 but the adjudicating authority has not passed specific order in the operating portion of the order - Held that - the Adjudicating authority has though recorded submission but not given findings. It also appears that there is error appearing in the order that no order was passed in the operating portion of the order relating to the penalty - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing order on the penalty u/r 15 of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against non-imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, seeking imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue contended that although the penalty was proposed in the show cause notice, the Commissioner did not impose it in the final order, leading to the appeal. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Commissioner had correctly held that penalty under Rule 15 could not be imposed. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and noted that while the appeal focused on the non-imposition of penalty under Rule 15, there was an irrelevant prayer regarding the recovery of interest. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority did not pass a specific order on the penalty under Rule 15 in the operating portion of the order. The Commissioner's order confirmed demands, interest payments, and penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994, for various show cause notices issued to the respondent. However, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had recorded the appellant's submissions but failed to provide findings on the penalty under Rule 15. Due to this error, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a proper order on the penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to address the specific issue of penalty imposition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's observations regarding the appeal's focus, and the need for a proper order on the penalty under Rule 15. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration ensures a fair and comprehensive resolution of the issue at hand, maintaining the integrity of the legal process.