2014 (3) TMI 118 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of penalty u/s 80 - Business Auxiliary Service - Ignorance of law - Commissioner (Appeals), gave the benefit of ignorance of law as respondent were not aware that they are under the net of service tax - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on various judicial pronouncements of the Tribunal, where the benefit of Section 80 was given to the assessee for their act which shows that assessee was not having a malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. In this case also, the respondent have said that they were not having knowledge that they are required to pay service tax as they were under the belief that service tax is to be paid by Airtel. In these circumstances, benefit of ignorance of law goes in favour of the respondent and as per Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the respondent has been able to prove beyond doubt that there was no malafide intention - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 except for one penalty of Rs. 25000 on the respondent.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the impugned order where penalties under different provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 were dropped by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), except for a penalty of Rs. 25000 imposed on the respondent. The respondent, a franchise of Airtel providing mobile services, was found to be an unregistered dealer with the service tax department during an investigation. Subsequently, the respondent paid the service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category and obtained the necessary certificate. However, show-cause notices were issued to impose various penalties, which were confirmed upon adjudication. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the respondent's ignorance of the law as they were unaware of their liability to pay service tax, leading to the dropping of penalties except for the Rs. 25000 penalty. The revenue's appeal primarily focused on the non-imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the respondent did not file any appeal.

During the hearing, the Tribunal considered the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on previous judicial pronouncements where the benefit of Section 80 was granted to the assessee due to the absence of a malicious intention to evade service tax payment. The respondent claimed they were unaware of their obligation to pay service tax, believing it was Airtel's responsibility. Based on this, the Tribunal found that the respondent's ignorance of the law was genuine, and they were able to establish no malicious intent in accordance with Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order had no defects, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal and the disposal of the cross objection.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to drop penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, except for the Rs. 25000 penalty imposed on the respondent. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's argument of ignorance of the law, supported by the benefit of Section 80, as sufficient evidence of the absence of malicious intent in evading service tax payment. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the cross objection was disposed of accordingly.