2010 (6) TMI 388 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty Revision order enhancing penalty - findings as regards the offending transactions of the appellant contained in the order of the original authority do not indicate that the assessee had wilfully evaded the payment of service tax - appellant paid service tax due before the issue of show cause notice - enhancing of penalty by the Commissioner in revisionary proceedings is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax.
2. Applicability of Section 80 of the Act in the case.
3. Competency of the Commissioner to enhance penalties imposed by the original authority.
4. Consideration of case laws in determining penalty liabilities.

Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76 and 78:
The Assistant Commissioner found the appellant liable for non-payment of Service Tax and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner revised the order, imposing equal penalties as the service tax demand, disagreeing with the lenient view taken by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. Applicability of Section 80 of the Act:
The appellant argued that they had paid the tax voluntarily before the show cause notice was issued, citing reasonable doubt about their service tax liability. They contended that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were not justified, relying on various case laws to support their position.

3. Competency of the Commissioner to Enhance Penalties:
The Commissioner enhanced the penalties imposed by the original authority, asserting his revisionary powers. The learned JDR supported this decision by citing relevant case laws and precedents where penalties were enhanced in similar circumstances.

4. Consideration of Case Laws:
Both parties presented case laws to support their arguments regarding penalty liabilities. The Tribunal analyzed these references, including judgments from various High Courts and previous Tribunal decisions, to determine the adequacy and proportionality of the penalties imposed in the case.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of willful evasion by the appellant in not paying the service tax. The Assistant Commissioner's penalties were deemed appropriate as there was no indication of fraud or intentional evasion. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to support its decision that the penalties imposed were adequate. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the case laws cited by both sides and concluded that the original authority's order did not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the order of the Original Authority was restored, allowing the appeal.