2007 (10) TMI 149 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration applications dismissed due to new Supreme Court decision not raised earlier. Member finds no error.

The Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications as the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellants was not raised during the original appeal ... Error apparent on record – Penalty – Held that SC decisions do not automatically apply to the service tax as such, because the provisions of Central Excise Act are different from that of Service tax – no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly reject the restoration applications. Issues:Appeal for restoration based on Supreme Court decision regarding penalty imposition when duty is paid before show cause notice issuance.Analysis:The appellants filed applications for restoration of appeals, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. The Supreme Court held that no penalty is liable to be imposed if duty is paid before the issuance of a show cause notice. The appellants argued that the Tribunal erroneously relied on a decision of the Larger Bench in a different case, which dealt with a separate issue regarding penalty reduction under Section 76. They emphasized that the payment of entire service tax before the show cause notice was not the subject of the Larger Bench decision, making it inapplicable to their case. The appellants requested the order to be set aside and the matter to be recalled based on the Supreme Court decision.Upon examination, the Member found that the appellants did not raise the Supreme Court case during the original appeal hearings where both parties were heard. The Member highlighted that the provisions of the Central Excise Act differ from those of the Service tax, indicating that the Supreme Court decision may not automatically apply to service tax matters. Consequently, the Member concluded that there was no apparent error in the Tribunal's order and rejected the restoration applications.In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications as the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellants was not raised during the original appeal hearings, and the Member found no error in the Tribunal's order based on the differing provisions of the Central Excise Act and Service tax laws.