2014 (6) TMI 67 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Simultaneous penalty u/s 76 & 78 - Held that - As held by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor World (2012 (6) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) penalties under section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. Therefore, penalty imposed under section 76 is dropped. Further I find that no option was given to the appellant to pay 25% of duty as penalty. As they have paid the service tax along with interest before the issuance of show-cause notice, as per the provisions of section 11AC of the Act, the penalty is reduced to 25% of duty which is to be paid within 30 days from today failing which they would be liable to pay 100% of the duty amount as penalty - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against penalties imposed under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case involved the provision of glass wool coating services to sugar factories from 2006-07 to 2009-2010. The department discovered that service tax had not been paid by the appellant to the sugar factory during an audit. The appellant, upon notification by the department, paid the service tax with interest and the remaining amount during the proceedings. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued for demanding service tax, interest, and penalties under the mentioned sections. Both lower authorities upheld the demand and penalties. The appellant contended that while not disputing the tax liability, they challenged the penalties imposed under sections 76, 77, and 78. The appellant argued that penalties under sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously, citing a decision by the Karnataka High Court. Additionally, they highlighted that as they had paid the service tax and interest before adjudication, the penalty should be reduced to 25% of the service tax amount.

The appellant's consultant argued that penalties under sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously, referring to a decision by the Karnataka High Court. They also pointed out that as the service tax and interest were paid before adjudication, the penalty should be reduced to 25% of the service tax amount. The Revenue representative reiterated the impugned order.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and referenced the Karnataka High Court decision, agreeing that penalties under sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. Consequently, the penalty under section 76 was dropped. Moreover, since the appellant had paid the service tax and interest before the show-cause notice, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the duty amount, as per the provisions of section 11AC of the Act. The appellant was directed to pay this reduced penalty within 30 days; failure to do so would result in a penalty of 100% of the duty amount. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.