2015 (10) TMI 1849 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty imposed under Section 76,77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Delay in payment of Service Tax on services of management service to MESCOM - Order of original adjudicating authority revised; imposed penalties under said Sections - Held That - Commissioner cannot revise the order in which the original authority has imposed penalty - Issue is covered by Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. wherein all services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity are exempted from tax; when tax was not payable, question of imposition of penalty also does not arise - Order set aside with consequential Relief - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Validity of penalties imposed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Applicability of Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. dated 20-7-2010 exempting taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The case involved the appellant providing management services to MESCOM and their sub-stations, resulting in a delay in payment of service tax. Initially, the original adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings and appropriated the amounts already paid towards the dues. However, a rectification order was issued imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside, but the Commissioner (A) revised the order and imposed penalties under all three sections. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (A) could not revise the order when the original authority had used discretionary powers regarding penalty imposition. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the High Court to set aside the penalties under Sections 76 and 77, as they were covered by the precedent.

2. Validity of penalties imposed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The Tribunal held that once the Commissioner (A) set aside the penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority, the matter had attained finality, especially since there was no appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 78 had merged with the Commissioner's order, leading to finality on that aspect. Therefore, the penalties imposed by the Commissioner under Section 84 were set aside based on the legal principles of finality and lack of appeal by the Revenue.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. dated 20-7-2010:
The appellant argued that Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. dated 20-7-2010 exempted all taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity provided before 26-2-2010. Since the service provided by the appellant was related to electricity transmission and fell within the specified period, the appellant contended that no tax was payable. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, stating that if the tax itself was not payable due to the notification, the question of imposing penalties did not arise. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and provided consequential relief to the appellant based on the exemption notification.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of penalty imposition under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, the validity of penalties imposed by the Commissioner, and the applicability of an exemption notification regarding taxable services related to electricity transmission. The Tribunal's analysis focused on legal principles, precedents, and statutory provisions to arrive at a decision in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties and providing relief based on the exemption notification.