2012 (7) TMI 600 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty under Sections 76,77 and 78 - assessee discharged the Service Tax liability on pointed out by the Department the interest for the period in question is still outstanding - Held that - As the assessee has paid entire amount of Service Tax, he also agreed to pay the said interest as due waiver of penalty u/s 78 as though there was a delay in making the payment of the Service Tax same was not by way of suppression, misdeclaration etc., as the entire value of taxable services for the relevant period has been correctly shown in the Balance Sheet as there was a delay in payment of Service Tax and the short payment was made good on being pointed out by the Department the Appellant are liable to penalty under Section 76 only.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.
2. Dispute over penalty imposition due to delayed Service Tax payment.
3. Arguments regarding non-concealment of facts and correct reflection in Balance Sheet.
4. Interpretation of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act regarding show cause notice issuance.
5. Comparison with relevant case law and invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appeal against the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act. The Appellant had paid the Service Tax but was penalized for delayed payment, leading to a dispute over the penalties imposed.

2. The Appellant did not contest the Service Tax liability but disputed the penalties, claiming the delay was due to non-realization from debtors and fund shortages. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the penalties, leading to the appeal.

3. The Appellant argued that they had not concealed any facts and had correctly reflected the taxable value in their Balance Sheet. They emphasized their bonafide intentions and compliance with the Department's requirements, stating that no concealment had occurred.

4. The Appellant invoked Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, claiming that since they had paid the Service Tax before the show cause notice, it should not have been issued. They highlighted their transparency in financial reporting and compliance with registration requirements.

5. The Appellant referenced a relevant case law to support their argument against penalty imposition. They compared their case to the cited judgment, asserting that theirs was a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, which would exempt them from penalties. The Tribunal ultimately held the Appellant liable for penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, acknowledging the delayed payment but rejecting the imposition of penalties under Section 78.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.