Commr. Of Central Excise & vs Shri Sashi Kumar Chowdhury

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 15/DIB/CE (A)/GHY/12 dated-27/04/2012 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati)

For approval and signature of: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE 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 ?

Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh

APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Shri Sashi Kumar Chowdhury

RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

Sri M. Chattopadhya, A.C. (A.R.) FOR APPELLANT(S) NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 16/06/2015

ORDER NO : FO/A/75422/2015 Per DR.D.M. MISRA None present for the respondent.

2. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 15/DIB/CE (A)/GHY/12 dated-27/04/2012.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is a proprietorship concern and during the relevant period i.e. 2008-2009, rendered services under the taxable category of authorized service station service. However, since the respondent failed to submit two ST-3 Returns, ending September, 2008 and March, 2009, he was issued with a show cause notice on 27/05/2009. In response to the said show cause notice, the applicant had paid the entire service tax and also paid the mandatory penalty of Rs.4,000/- for the delay in filing the Returns. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner on adjudication, dropped the proceedings after appropriation of the Service Tax alongwith interest amounting to Rs.5,541/- and penalty of Rs.4,000/-.The Revenue filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the adjudicating authority has though not confirmed the demand but appropriated it and also failed to discuss under what provisions the penalty was imposed. The respondent has not filed any appeal against the said order-in-original before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the Revenues appeal in as much as while passing the impugned order, he has erroneously held that confirmation and appropriation of the service tax, interest and penalty is bad in law. It is his submission that since the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the appeal, hence the order is bad in law. However, he fairly accepted that the Ld. Adjudicating authority ought to have discussed the relevant provisions under which the penalty has been confirmed. Hence, he prays that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to record reasons and the provisions under which the penalty is imposable.

5. I find force in the submission of the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue and agree with his contention that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the review appeal. Simultaneously, it is also a fact that the adjudicating authority has not recorded reasonings while passing the order. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to record reasons in confirming the service tax, interest and also the provisions under which the penalty has been imposed. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(D.M. MISRA) Judicial Member k.b/-

Service Tax Appeal No. 384/12 4