2015 (8) TMI 303 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 - Technical Inspection and Certification Services and Overseas Service Providers - Held that - Appellant is not agitating the issue of livability of service tax on reverse charge basis and has paid the entire amount alongwith interest. In the case of appellant the entire service tax paid on reverse charge basis is admissible to the appellant there cannot be any intention to evade payment of service tax. It is also observed that the issue of leviability of service tax on reverse charge basis was under litigation for sometime till under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 was introduce. There was confusion in the law regarding leviability of service tax on reverse charge basis. Appellant, therefore, held a reasonable cause for not making the payment of service tax on reverse charge basis. However, the entire amount of service tax was paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice therefore, appellant s case in covered by the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, in the case of Revenue neutral situation no intention to evade payment of service tax can be attributed on the part of appellant for imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. - penalties imposed upon the appellants are set-aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant for receiving 'Technical Inspection and Certification Services' from overseas service providers and paying service tax on reverse charge basis.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for availing 'Technical Inspection and Certification Services' from overseas providers and paying service tax on reverse charge basis. The appellant contended that penalties were not justified as they had paid the service tax on reverse charge basis under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and were eligible for Cenvat Credit. The appellant relied on the judgment of Alembic Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II to support their case, emphasizing that there was no intention to evade tax payment. The appellant argued that the confusion regarding the leviability of service tax on reverse charge basis, which was resolved with the introduction of Section 66A, provided a reasonable cause for not making the payment initially. The appellant had paid the entire service tax before receiving the Show Cause Notice, falling within the purview of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that in a revenue-neutral situation where the entire service tax was paid, there was no intention to evade payment, and the confusion in the law further supported the appellant's case.

The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, defended the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, arguing that the case law relied upon by the appellant was not applicable, and the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 did not support the appellant's position. However, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand primarily revolved around the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had paid the service tax on reverse charge basis in good faith, with no intention to evade payment, especially considering the confusion in the law prior to the introduction of Section 66A. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed on the appellant were unwarranted in a scenario where the service tax was paid in full and before any formal notice was received. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.