2015 (8) TMI 1191 - AT - Service Tax

Construction Service of Residential Complex - Penalty u/s 76 - Held that - Appellant having accepted before the adjudicating authority that they are rending the service and the said findings are not contested before first appellate authority, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel that show-cause notice does not indicate as to which type of services were rendered by the appellant therefore we upheld the demand of service tax liability and interest thereof. Appellant is directed to pay interest on the said amount within four weeks - appellant being from rural area of the State would have entertained a bonafide belief as to that they are not required to discharge any service tax liability as the services rendered by them is towards construction of residential complex. In our view that this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Service tax liability on the appellant under the category of Construction Service of Residential Complex for the period 2008-2009, applicability of penalty under Section 76, invocation of extended period for demand, acceptance of rendered services by the appellant, penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(59)40/2010 dated 07.04.2010. The primary issue in question was the service tax liability on the appellant concerning the Construction Service of Residential Complex for the period 2008-2009. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a show-cause notice along with interest and penalties. The first appellate authority upheld the views of the adjudicating authority but reduced the penalty under Section 76 based on the calculation of the said Section.

During the proceedings, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the services rendered were not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice, and there was no clear allegation regarding the services provided during the relevant period. It was also contended that the demand was based on a Circular dated 29.01.2009, while the period in question was 2007-08 and 2008-09, making the invocation of extended period questionable.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had acknowledged before the adjudicating authority that they were providing services under the category of construction of residential complexes. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant did not contest this acceptance before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax liability and interest, directing the appellant to pay the interest amount within a specified timeframe.

Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal considered the appellant's location in a rural area and the possibility of a genuine belief that they were not liable to pay service tax for the services rendered. In light of this, the Tribunal invoked Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, setting aside all penalties imposed by the authorities while confirming the demand for service tax liability and interest.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the demand for service tax liability and interest, setting aside penalties under Section 80, and directing the appellant to pay the specified interest amount within the stipulated timeframe.