Court overturns penalty order under Finance Act, 1994, citing procedural errors. Remanded for fair hearing.

The court set aside the order imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to procedural lapses in service and hearing opportunities. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and have a hearing. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the authority and ordered the return of any excess amount if the decision favored the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the letters and order imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Service tax liability and registration compliance.
3. Alleged procedural lapses in issuing show cause notice and opportunity of hearing.
4. Validity of the adjudicating authority's order and its service.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the Letters and Order Imposing Penalty:
The petitioner challenged the letter dated August 7, 2020, letter dated September 16, 2020, and the Order dated March 6, 2018, issued by the Superintendent, CGST, and Central Excise, imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,58,764/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Service Tax Liability and Registration Compliance:
The petitioner, engaged in providing vehicles on hire since 2009 (with respondent no. 5) and 2012 (with respondent no. 4), received a letter on August 11, 2015, for verification of Service Tax liability. The petitioner obtained Service Tax registration on September 10, 2015, after realizing that "Rent-a-Cab" services were taxable.

3. Alleged Procedural Lapses:
The petitioner argued that no show cause notice was issued, and no opportunity for a hearing was provided before the demand notices and penalties were imposed. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of the original order dated March 6, 2018, and alleged procedural violations.

4. Validity of the Adjudicating Authority's Order and Its Service:
The respondents contended that a show cause notice was issued on February 5, 2016, and the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for a personal hearing, which the petitioner did not attend. The order dated March 6, 2018, was sent by speed post on March 14, 2018. However, the postal authorities could not confirm delivery due to non-availability of records.

Court's Findings:
- The court found that the petitioner had received the show cause notice and requested rescheduling of hearing dates, contradicting the petitioner's claim of non-receipt.
- The court noted the failure of the respondents to provide proof of delivery of the order dated March 6, 2018, as required under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- The court emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and that the respondents failed to demonstrate proper service of the order.

Conclusion:
The impugned order dated March 6, 2018, was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and ensuring an opportunity for a hearing. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the authority and stated that any excess amount realized should be returned if found in favor of the petitioner. The writ application was allowed, and the interim application was disposed of.

---