2. The assessee, aggrieved by the Order (Revisional) of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik dated 6-9-2005 came in appeal.
3. The matter pertains to the Service Tax of the assessee. An amount of Rs. 1,25,978/- was confirmed as Service Tax for the period relating to September, 1999 to March, 2003 under Sections 68 & 75 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, the assessee has paid the same with interest of Rs. 18,359/-. Further, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed for non-filing of return in time under Section 77 of the Act, 1994 and Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of the Service Tax. A Show-Cause-Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner (ST.), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik, Divn. II.4. The assessee had assailed the said proceedings for imposing the penalty amount by the Commissioner (A), but no relief was granted.
Again the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal whereas the Tribunal had reduced the penalty amount on the both accounts. Once the matter reached finality, again Show-Cause-Notice was issued to the assessee proposing to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner (ST.), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik. The Revisional Commissioner had adjudicated the notice and enhanced the penalty @ Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and the same is restricted to Rs. 1,25,978/-. Hence, this appeal filed by the assessee once again.
5. The issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-1 2006 (1) S.T.R. 271 (Tri.- Del.) in favour of the assessee. In the case of Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd., the Revisional Commissioner enhanced the penalty on 14-9-2004 whereas the Tribunal order was on 28-6-2005 even then it is held to be not sustainable, but in the instant case Tribunal order is dated 9-5-2005 and the order of the Revisional Commissioner enhancing the penalty on 6-9-2005 even the Show-Cause-Notice was issued on 2-8-2005 after the decision of the Tribunal. This clearly amounts to double jeopardy. The person cannot be penalized twice for the same offence.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Commissioner is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.