Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Ramesh Yadav vs Cce, Indore on 9 April, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Service Tax appeal No. 27 of 2009-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 14/Commr/IND/ST/2008 dated 16.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore]
Date of Hearing/decision: 9th April, 2012
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Shri Ramesh Yadav Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Indore Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Pushkar Kr. Singh, Adv. Present for the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, SDR Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
None present for the appellant. This appeal has arisen against suo-moto revision of order passed by learned Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 imposing penalty of Rs. 1000/- under section 77 of the said Act followed by penalty of Rs. 1,55,927/- under Section 78 thereof. Reading of the show cause notice available at page 40 of the appeal folder does not highlight whether there was any deliberate or intentional breach of law made by the appellant to cause loss to Revenue. The Adjudicating Authority while completing the adjudication by order dated 27.9.2007 has clearly recorded that the appellant came forward to discharge tax liability. He has also recorded that the appellant is not educated person. He did not find any cogent reason to have belief that no payment of tax was intentional and there was suppression of fact with intent to evade payment thereof. He did not notice such aspect while concluding adjudication. It clearly indicates that he has reflected his mind by thread bare examination of the fact. In such a circumstances there is no necessity to appreciate the revisional order where the authority has only mechanically concluded that penalty ought to have been imposed. It appears that his order is indication of redundancy for which that is bound to be set aside. The appellant succeeds and appeal is allowed.
2. Learned Counsel Shri Pushkar Kumar Singh appears after dictation of the order and mentions that he was stuck in traffic jam. By the time he reached the Tribunal the matter had been disposed. He prays that his attendance may be record. Prayer is allowed. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 3