Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1008 - AT - Service TaxLevy of penalty u/s 78 - Suppression of facts or not - Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty - Revenue wants to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. - Held that - in the present case the demand is within the normal period of limitation. As the earlier show cause notices were issued demanding service tax on the same grounds, therefore we find that the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax in the present proceedings is not sustainable. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act is restored. - Decided against the assessee.
Issues involved: Appeal against demand of service tax, imposition of penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, contention regarding non-payment of service tax, suppression of facts, applicability of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
Analysis: 1. Demand of Service Tax and Imposition of Penalties: The appellant filed an appeal against an order confirming a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 53,53,317/- along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The adjudicating authority dropped the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The Revenue, on the other hand, appealed against the dropping of penalty under Section 78 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants opposed the Revenue's appeal seeking to impose the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 2. Contention of the Revenue: The Revenue contended that the service tax on commercial training, coaching services, and franchise services fell under the purview of service tax from 1.7.2003, which the appellant had not paid. Previous show cause notices were issued, demanding service tax for specific periods, and the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the Revenue in those cases. The present show cause notice was issued for a subsequent period, alleging non-payment despite previous adjudication orders. 3. Allegation of Suppression and Intent to Evade Tax: The Revenue argued that since previous show cause notices were issued, they were aware of the taxable services provided by the appellants. Therefore, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax in the subsequent show cause notice was deemed unsustainable. 4. Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal found that the demand fell within the normal period of limitation and that previous show cause notices had been issued on similar grounds. Consequently, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax in the present proceedings was considered unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, dismissing both appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of sustainable evidence supporting the allegation of suppression and intent to evade payment of tax, thereby upholding the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
|