2013 (11) TMI 609 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - Chargeability of service tax on Security Agency Services - Demand of duty dropped for the period November-2008 to March-2009 but confirmed and appropriated the duty payment made by the appellant for the period April-2009 to May-2009 - Penalty and interest also confirmed against assessee - Held that - deliberations were going on between the MHA and the Finance Ministry about the duty liability on Security Agency Services provided by the appellant and an ad-hoc exemption order No. 1/1/2011 dt. 01/07/2011 was issued by the Finance Ministry for the period 16/10/1988 to 31/03/2009. Further appellant has also paid the duty and interest pertaining to the period April 2009 to May 2009. As the CISF is working under the MHA, therefore, there cannot be a situation of non-payment of the service tax with intention to evade the duty. Accordingly it is held that penalty under Sec. 78 of the Finance Act 1944 is not imposable upon the appellant. Further as per Sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1944, as claimed by the appellant and looking to the fact that appellant has paid the entire service tax along with interest, penalties under Sec. 77 & 78 are also not imposable upon the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Chargeability of service tax on Security Agency Services provided by the appellant to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Gujarat Refinery Township, Vadodara. Imposition of penalties under sec. 78 & 79 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. The appeal filed by M/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Vadodara Region, Gujarat was against OIO No. 12/STC/Demand/Commr-I/2013. The issue revolved around the chargeability of service tax on Security Agency Services provided by CISF to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand for a specific period but confirmed the duty payment for another period, along with interest and penalties under sec. 78 & 79 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the duty amount for a particular period had been paid after a decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that service tax was payable by CISF from a certain date. It was contended that penalties under sec. 77 & 78 should not have been imposed considering the provisions of sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The respondent reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, leading to a detailed examination of the case by the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal noted that an ad-hoc exemption order was issued by the Ministry of Finance exempting CISF from service tax for a specific period. However, it was established that CISF was liable to pay service tax from a certain date onwards, based on the collected taxable value during April and May 2009.

5. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal held that penalties under sec. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were not applicable to the appellant as there was no intention to evade the duty, especially since CISF operates under the MHA. Additionally, relying on sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the fact that the appellant had paid the service tax and interest, penalties under sec. 77 & 78 were deemed inapplicable.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the OIO to the extent of service tax liability paid by the appellant along with interest but allowed the appeal regarding the imposition of penalties under sec. 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, observations made by the Tribunal, and the final decision rendered in the case.