2013 (5) TMI 337 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76 77 & 78 - Appellant submission that during the period in question there was confusion as to the liability discharged of Service Tax on the commission received from the Direct Selling Agents as directed by the banks - held that - There is no reason to deviate from view taken by Bench in appellant s own case as the issue involved in this case and in that case was the same. Impugned order to the extent it upholds the imposition of penalties u/s 76 77 & 78 is set aside and appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against penalty imposition under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was made against Order-in-Original, which was upheld by the first appellate authority, leading to this appeal.

2. Service Tax Liability: The appellant had already paid the entire Service Tax liability along with interest before the show cause notice was issued. The confusion existed regarding the liability discharge of Service Tax on the commission received from Direct Selling Agents as directed by the banks.

3. Legal Submissions: The appellant's counsel argued that there was confusion during the relevant period regarding the Service Tax liability on the commission received. Reference was made to a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee.

4. Authorities' Positions: The Additional Commissioner reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, upholding the penalties imposed.

5. Judgment on Service Tax Liability: The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant had discharged the Service Tax liability along with interest before the show cause notice, and since this issue was not contested before the Tribunal, the lower authorities' orders were upheld.

6. Penalty Imposition: The Tribunal acknowledged the confusion regarding the appellant's liability for Service Tax on the commission received. Citing precedents and a Board's circular, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had no intention to evade duty and promptly paid the Service Tax with interest. Therefore, penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act were deemed not imposable.

7. Consistency in Decision: The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its previous decision on a similar issue, maintaining consistency in its approach.

8. Final Decision: The Tribunal set aside the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, allowing the appeal on that ground.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, the legal positions taken, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.