2010 (12) TMI 417 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - Tax liability - Banking and other Financial Services as Merchant Banking Services - Postponement of liability - Incidence of levy under aforesaid category fastened liability on the appellant from 19-4-2006 by Notification No. 10/2006-ST dated 19-4-2006 - The liability that has been incurred by the appellant is for the period soon after two months of the Implementation of the law - it is a case where there is no mala fides of the appellant apparent from the face of adjudication order - On 8-9-2007 the appellant paid the tax due through TR-6 challan which is evident from page 22 of the appeal folder containing show cause notice - Sections 76 and 78 being subject to benediction of section 80 of Finance Act 1994 in absence of mala fide of the appellant levy of penalty is unwarranted - Thus the appellant succeeds and its appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order confirming tax liability.

Summary

Issues:
- Liability for service tax on "Merchant Banking Services" availed by the appellant from September 2006 to August 2007.
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant for alleged failure to discharge tax liability promptly.
- Consideration of interest liability on service tax demand.
- Evaluation of penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. The judgment primarily deals with the liability of the appellant for service tax on "Merchant Banking Services" availed between September 2006 and August 2007. The appellant argued that the tax liability was discharged on 8-9-2007 through a TR-6 challan, demonstrating compliance once the service became taxable from 19-4-2006. The appellant contended that penalty imposition would be unjust given the timely payment after notification of the tax liability.

2. The Departmental Representative supported the order of the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the lack of justifiable reasons presented by the appellant against invoking section 73 of the Finance Act, 1999. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not exhibit any contumacious conduct and cooperated with the revenue authorities to discharge the tax liability promptly after being informed of the same.

3. The Tribunal considered the discharge of interest liability along with the service tax demand. It was observed that there was no evidence of evasive behavior or willful suppression of facts by the appellant to evade tax. The situation was characterized as a postponement of liability rather than intentional evasion, leading to a conclusion that there was no loss of revenue caused by the appellant.

4. The discussion also delved into the evaluation of penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that penalty imposition was unwarranted, citing the provisions of section 80 of the Act. The Tribunal agreed that in the absence of malafide intent or willful evasion, penalties under sections 76 and 78 could not be imposed automatically. Therefore, invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, was deemed appropriate to waive the penalties imposed on the appellant.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order confirming the tax liability. The decision was based on the absence of malafide intentions, the timely discharge of tax liability, and the lack of grounds for penalty imposition under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.