TRIVENI STRUCTURALS LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the assessee. The appeal is preferred against the Order -in -Revision No. ST -53/2007/5 of 2008, dated 31 -1 -2008 whereby the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad revised the adjudication order dated 22 -2 -2007 and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/ - under Section 75A; penalty of Rs. 6,16,233/ - under Section 76 for violation of Section 68 of the Act; and penalty of Rs. 500/ - for each default under Section 77 of the Act for failure to file ST -3 returns required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee challenges this order inter alia on the ground that the order is in violation of the provision of Section 84(4) of the Act.

(2.) THE relevant factual scenario may be noticed. During 1997 -98 to 2001 -02, appellant entered into a contract with the Naval Base, Tirunelveli for providing maintenance and inspection services in respect of VLF Antenna including ground systems. Proceedings were initiated under a show cause notice dated 20 -3 -2003, alleging non -remittance of service tax for having provided "consulting engineer" service and for levy of interest and penalties on the proposed quantum of service tax not remitted. Proceedings ended in an adjudication order dated 22 -2 -2007 and a corrigendum order dated 19 -3 -2007. The adjudication authority confirmed service tax demand for Rs. 6,16,233/ - and imposed penalty of an equivalent amount under Section 76; imposed penalties under Section 75A and 77 of the Act without specifying the penalty under each of these provisions. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal on 25 -5 -2007 before the appellate Commissioner. By the order dated 29 -8 -2007, the appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal. There against the appellant preferred an appeal - ST/161/2008 to this Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant and ld. A.R. for Revenue state that this appeal was dismissed for default.

(3.) LD . Counsel for the appellant contends that qua provisions of Section 84(4) of the Act, the respondent could not have passed the impugned order since the appellant had preferred an appeal on 25 -5 -2007 to the appellate Commissioner against the adjudication order dated 22 -2 -2007 and the appellate Commissioner had also disposed of the appeal on 29 -8 -2007 by dismissing the same.