2012 (4) TMI 276 - AT - Service Tax

Sought registration and discharged entire tax liability with interest on being made aware by the department that its activities come under erection commissioning installation, repair and maintenance and commercial and industrial construction - assesee claims a waiver of penalty as being an illiterate was not aware of the law - Held that - So far as penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 are concerned, we are unable to find oblique motive of the appellant to cause evasion - All these mitigating factors call for waiver of penalty to the extent that was confirmed by first appellate order - penalty under Section 77 for no registration taken duly is confirmed - appeal partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability for various categories of services provided, registration date for tax liability, compliance with the law, penalty imposition, relief granted by the Appellate Authority, consideration of penalty reduction, application of Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, presence of oblique motive for evasion, waiver of penalty.

Service Tax Liability:
The appellant was brought under service tax liability for services provided, including erection, commissioning, installation, repair, maintenance, and construction. The appellant, being illiterate, was unaware of the law until the Department sought information. The liability arose under different dates for various services, and the appellant sought registration and paid the entire tax liability with interest.

Penalty Imposition:
The issue of penalty arose due to non-compliance with the law, but the appellant did not have an oblique motive to evade service tax. The Appellate Authority reduced the penalty amount, acknowledging that the appellant would have complied if aware of the law. The penalty under Section 77 for failure to register was confirmed, but the penalty under Sections 76 and 78 was questioned due to the absence of questionable conduct or evasion motive.

Relief Granted:
The Appellate Authority considered the appellant entitled to relief, reducing the penalty imposed under Section 78 significantly. The appellant's lack of awareness of the law and the different dates of service tax applicability were taken into account in granting relief. The appellant's compliance upon becoming aware of the liability was a crucial factor in the decision.

Application of Finance Act:
The appellant's counsel argued for the application of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal found no oblique motive for evasion and considered mitigating factors in determining the waiver of penalties. The appeal partly succeeded based on the lack of evidence of intentional evasion and the appellant's compliance efforts upon notification of the liability.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of service tax liability, penalty imposition, relief granted, and the application of relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal considered the appellant's lack of awareness, compliance efforts, and absence of an oblique motive for evasion in determining the reduction and waiver of penalties.