2014 (1) TMI 360 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty under Section 76, 77 or 78 - Suppression of facts - Benefit of Exemption Notification Nos. 9/2003-ST and 24/2004-ST - Held that - respondents got themselves registered with the Revenue suo motu and paid the service tax along with interest before the issue of the show cause notice and the respondents were under bona fide belief and genuine doubt whether or not the courses run by the respondents could be treated as vocational courses. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the lower authority invoked the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand confirmation, imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, registration and payment of service tax by the respondents, bona fide belief of the respondents regarding liability for service tax, reliance on tribunal decision for exemption, invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order confirming a demand of Rs. 2,89,90,972/- and education cess of Rs. 5,12,563/- for the period July 2003 to September 2006. Notably, no penalties were imposed under Sections 76, 77, or 78 of the Finance Act by the adjudicating authority. The appeal primarily challenged the dropping of penalty proceedings by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Revenue contended that the respondents had suppressed facts regarding taxable services provided by them, making them liable for penalties under the relevant sections of the Finance Act. However, it was observed that the respondents voluntarily registered with the Revenue in June 2006 and paid the service tax with interest before a show cause notice was issued, indicating a proactive approach towards compliance.

3. The impugned order noted that the respondents genuinely believed they were not liable for service tax, citing a specific tribunal decision in a similar case. This decision supported the view that the activities conducted by the respondents qualified for exemption under certain Notification Nos. The respondents' registration and payment of tax before the show cause notice further demonstrated their bona fide belief and genuine doubt regarding the tax liability.

4. The Tribunal found no fault with the lower authority's decision to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act based on the circumstances of the case. Given the proactive steps taken by the respondents, their reliance on legal precedents, and their genuine belief about the tax liability, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The cross objections were also disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.