2010 (12) TMI 766 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 - waiver of penalty u/s 80 - non-availability of judgment in the case of Agauta Sugar & Chemicals v. CCE (2010 -TMI - 77758 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)(LB) - debatable issue - penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 waived

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand, penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, debatable stage of law, waiver of penalty.

Service Tax Demand:
The appellant initially had no cause to press the appeal further. Later, it was argued that due to the unavailability of a judgment in a specific case, the appellant should not suffer penalty and other consequences of law, despite having no cause to press the service tax demand. The matter of levy had been unsettled until a Larger Bench decision clarified the issue.

Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994:
Both sides acknowledged the confusion caused by the debatable stage of the law regarding the levy, leading to a reasonable cause for the appellant's confusion. The Tribunal found that the confusion among taxpayers due to the unsettled law could be a mitigating factor and a reasonable cause under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to waive the penalty under section 76. The first appellate authority did not address the penalty issue but merely confirmed the adjudication order.

Debatable Stage of Law:
The Tribunal recognized that when the law is in a debatable stage for a prolonged period, confusion is likely to arise among taxpayers regarding the levy itself. In this case, the Tribunal considered the confusion caused by the unsettled law as a mitigating factor and a reasonable cause to waive the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Waiver of Penalty:
Considering the reasons related to the debatable stage of the law and the confusion it caused, the Tribunal decided to waive the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order of dismissal was recalled, and the penalty was waived due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, with no mala fide on the part of the appellant being found.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the impact of unsettled legal issues on taxpayers and the need to assess penalties in light of the confusion caused by such debatable stages of the law.