2010 (2) TMI 638 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - Commissioner revised an order of the original authority and imposed penalties as per sections 76 and 78 of the Act - original authority had imposed penalties of only Rs. 500 each under these sections - penalties imposed on a finding that the appellant had suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - finding has no basis - order not legal - order set aside and the appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Revision of penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, revising penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants were engaged in providing services classified under 'Security agency service' during 2001-04 without following statutory formalities, including payment of service tax. The original authority demanded service tax of Rs. 68,621 and imposed penalties under various sections of the Act. Subsequently, the Commissioner revised the penalties under sections 76 and 78, imposing a penalty per day under section 76 and a penalty equal to the service tax demand under section 78.

During the appeal, the appellants argued that the original authority did not find fraud or intent to evade payment of service tax, while the Commissioner found suppression of facts by the appellants with an intent to evade payment. The appellants contended that the impugned order was not sustainable and the demand should be vacated. The learned DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Judge found that the penalties imposed by the Commissioner were based on a finding that the appellants had suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax, a finding that was deemed to have no basis. Consequently, the Judge concluded that the impugned order was not legal, set it aside, and allowed the appeal.