9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 705 - AT - Service TaxLevy of penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 - The commission in revisionary exercise enhanced the penalty - Failure to take registration under that category, to file returns and to periodically remit the service tax due - interest and penalties under Section 75A, 76, 77 and 78 - Held that - if the appellant remits 25% of the enhanced penalty under Section 78, as now determined by the impugned order, within 30 days from the date of this order , in terms of second proviso to Section 78, that would the sufficient compliance and would discharge the liability in this account. We however notice that the appellant already remitted the penalty of ₹ 24,250/-, imposed by the primary authority under Section 78. This amount is in excess of 50% of enhanced penalty of ₹ 44,864/- imposed by the Revisional Authority. Therefore this is sufficient compliance with the requirement of remittance required under the 2nd proviso to Section 78. - Decided in favor of assessee. Regarding penalty u/s 77 - held that - since discretion was exercised by the Primary Authority for levying the penalty under Section 77 at ₹ 1000/-, in the absence of a perversity in exercise of the discretion found by the Revisional Authority, we find no justification for enhancement of the penalty to ₹ 2000/- - enhanced penalty set aside - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Revision enhancing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. 2. Legitimacy of penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78. 3. Enhancement of penalty under Section 77. 4. Application of the second proviso to Section 78 for remittance of penalty. Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Revision: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Revision enhancing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Revisional Authority increased penalties to &8377; 44,864/- and dropped the penalty imposed under Section 75A. The primary adjudication order confirmed a tax demand of &8377; 3,18,522/- and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78, along with penalties under Sections 75A and 77. Issue 2: Legitimacy of Penalties under Sections 76 and 78: The Revisional Authority found that the appellant suppressed taxable values and invoked Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, holding the appellant liable to pay service tax on security agency services rendered during the relevant period. The Revisional Authority enhanced penalties under Sections 76 and 78 to &8377; 44,864/-, rejecting the contention of the appellant regarding the bar of limitation for passing the revisional order. Issue 3: Enhancement of Penalty under Section 77: The primary adjudication order imposed a penalty of &8377; 1000/- under Section 77, which was enhanced to &8377; 2000/- by the Revisional Authority. The Tribunal found no justification for this enhancement, as the discretion exercised by the primary authority was not found to be perverse. Consequently, the enhancement of penalty under Section 77 to &8377; 2000/- was quashed. Issue 4: Application of Second Proviso to Section 78: The appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefits of the second proviso to Section 78, allowing for the remittance of 25% of the penalty determined under Section 78 if service tax and interest were remitted within 30 days of the adjudication order. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had already remitted an amount exceeding 50% of the enhanced penalty imposed by the Revisional Authority, satisfying the remittance requirement under the second proviso to Section 78. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by confirming the remittance of the enhanced penalty under Section 78, upholding the enhancement of penalty under Section 76, and setting aside the enhancement of penalty under Section 77. The appellant was not required to deposit any further amount towards the penalty under Section 78.
|
