2010 (7) TMI 315 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - appellants were providing erection, commissioning and installation service and they were having service tax registration - Revenue s case was for imposition of penalty for late filing of returns and delay in payment of service tax - Held that - contention of the appellant is that they were not well conversant with the procedure and the Service tax is new levy for them - appellant at no stage disputed the tax liability and that they paid the Service Tax and furnished the return belatedly is also not in dispute - penalty is sustainable - reduce the penalty - appeal is allowed

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for late filing of returns and delay in payment of service tax.
2. Appellant's contention of exemption from service tax based on value-based exemption notification.
3. Appellant's argument of lack of mala fide in the delay.
4. Applicability of case laws cited by the appellant.
5. Revenue's contention regarding the appellant's knowledge of service tax matters.
6. Tribunal's analysis of penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
7. Reduction of penalty amount based on facts and circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the case involving the imposition of penalties for late filing of returns and delay in payment of service tax. The appellant had filed an appeal against the order-in-original passed by the lower adjudicating authority, which was upheld by the lower appellate authority.

2. The appellant argued that they were exempt from service tax based on a value-based exemption notification. They claimed that the person responsible for service tax matters had earlier guided them on exemption. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant should have sought clarification if there were any doubts regarding their tax obligations.

3. The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention of lack of mala fide in the delay in payment and filing of returns. The appellant had paid the service tax along with interest, emphasizing their small proprietorship concern status and lack of intentional wrongdoing.

4. The appellant cited various case laws to support their argument, including Sanghi Industries Ltd., ABS Inc., and Star Crane Service. However, the Tribunal found that the case laws cited were not directly relevant to the penalty under Section 76 in this case.

5. The Revenue argued that the appellant had not previously claimed a lack of knowledge about service tax matters and should have approached the department for clarification if needed. The Revenue relied on previous judgments to support their contention.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found the penalty sustainable due to the undisputed delay in payment and filing of returns. The Tribunal reduced the penalty amount based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, reducing the penalty amount from &8377; 36,000 to &8377; 10,000 and from &8377; 18,000 to &8377; 9,000 under Section 76. The penalty of &8377; 1000 under Section 77 was upheld, and the appeal was allowed to the extent of the penalty reduction.

← Previous Next →