2006 (11) TMI 26 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty(Service tax)- Photography service- Original authority demanded mandatory penalty and interest alongwith service tax from appellant- After considering the fact service tax and penalty reduced by the Commissioner(Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal confirming reduced service tax but reducing penalty. Consideration of evidence in reducing service tax liability. Authority of Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider service tax liability, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order-in-appeal that upheld the order-in-original confirming reduced service tax but reducing penalty. The respondent was issued a show cause notice for service tax demand for providing photography services. The adjudicating authority confirmed the notice with penalty and interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty payable and penalty based on documents produced by the respondent.

In the absence of the respondent during the hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the matter based on the documents submitted. The learned DR argued that the service tax amount should not have been reduced as the respondent did not produce any documents before the adjudicating authority. However, upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the issue correctly.

The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the service tax liability after examining original receipt books and other documents provided by the respondent, showing actual income from photography services. The demand was reduced significantly based on the evidence presented. The Commissioner (Appeals) acted within the authority granted under Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows for the reconsideration of service tax liability, interest, and penalty based on evidence presented during the appeal process.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. It was concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately followed the provisions of the Finance Act in redetermining the service tax liability, interest, and penalty based on the evidence presented. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering evidence and following due process in determining tax liabilities.