2019 (1) TMI 974 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76 of FA - condonation of delay of 1293 days in filing the cross objection - Tribunal rejected the application - HC directed the tribunal to reconsider the application, while tribunal as passed the Final Order itself - the factum of Final Order dated 02.07.2018 was not brought to the notice of the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh despite that the said Order is acknowledged to be very much in the knowledge of the respondent-assessee - Held that - The circumstances as narrated since were not brought to the notice of the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the Ld. Counsel for the respondent assesses has requested time to seek clarification from the Hon ble High Court itself. In the interest of justice and in view of the observations of Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, time as requested is hereby given. Since before this Tribunal nothing is pending as on date, Appeal being already disposed of, liberty is given to the asseesse-respondent to seek the appropriate remedy, if required, subsequently. The present matter however stands disposed of as of now.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing cross objection.
2. Confirmation of penalties under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Appeal against the Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2017.
4. Remittance of the matter back to the Tribunal by the High Court.
5. Liberty given to the respondent for seeking appropriate remedy.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in filing cross objection:
The respondent filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of a 1293-day delay in filing the cross objection. The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide a detailed chronology of dates to explain the delay. However, due to the absence of the respondent, the Miscellaneous Application was dismissed, and the Appeal of Revenue was listed for final hearing.

Issue 2 - Confirmation of penalties under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The Tribunal allowed the Appeal of Revenue, confirming the penalty under Section 76 for the period from 01.10.2004 to 09.05.2008. The lower authority was directed to quantify and impose the penalty for this period, emphasizing that the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order but ordered the payment of penalty under Section 76 additionally.

Issue 3 - Appeal against the Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2017:
The appellant appeared before the High Court against the Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2017. The High Court found the Tribunal's order contrary to the facts available on record and set it aside, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision in accordance with the law.

Issue 4 - Remittance of the matter back to the Tribunal by the High Court:
The High Court, unaware of the Tribunal's order dated 02.07.2018, set aside the Tribunal's order of 12.12.2017 based on the facts available on record. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, with directions to decide it in accordance with the law.

Issue 5 - Liberty given to the respondent for seeking appropriate remedy:
Since the Appeal was already disposed of, the Tribunal granted liberty to the respondent to seek an appropriate remedy if required subsequently. The matter was considered disposed of as of the current date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision on the penalties under Section 76 was upheld, but the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal by the High Court for a fresh decision due to procedural discrepancies. The respondent was given liberty to seek further remedies if necessary.