2015 (9) TMI 106 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 78 - Interpretation of law - Held that - Adjudicating authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that penalty, in these kind of matters wherein question of interpretation involved, does not arise and invoking the provisions of Section 80, which in our view, is very correct - Impugned order is upheld to that extent with regard to the penalty being not imposed by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against order-in-original dated 29.10.2010 - imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was filed by Revenue challenging the order-in-original dated 29.10.2010. The respondent did not appear during the proceedings, leading to the appeal being considered in their absence. The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority did not impose a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, despite the appellant's failure to discharge the service tax liability as expected. The adjudicating authority, in dropping the penalty under Section 78, invoked the provisions of Section 80, citing the complexities and disputes arising in the interpretation of newer taxation laws like service tax.

The adjudicating authority highlighted that disputes on the interpretation of tax laws are common, especially with newer taxes like service tax. It was noted that taxpayers may fail to discharge tax liabilities due to ignorance or misinterpretation of the law, which may not necessarily be considered willful evasion. In this specific case, the authority found that the confusion regarding the rate of tax change during the financial year led to a clerical error in the payment of service tax. The authority took a lenient view, considering the genuine belief of the assessee regarding the service tax rate change and waived the penalty under Section 80.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, agreeing with the adjudicating authority's decision not to impose a penalty under Section 78 but to invoke Section 80 instead. The Tribunal appreciated the authority's approach in recognizing the genuine confusion and misinterpretation on the part of the taxpayer, emphasizing that penalties in cases involving interpretation issues may not be warranted. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was rejected, and the cross objection filed by the assessee was also disposed of in light of the Tribunal's decision.