2015 (10) TMI 2160 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalty under Section 76 Services of commercial coaching or training centre Whether the adjudicating authority has correctly dropped proceedings initiated by SCN for imposition of penalties for non-discharge of service tax liability by Respondent? Held That - Section 80 empowers adjudicating authority to set aside penalties for justifiable reason Found justifiable reason for non-discharge of service tax liability Reasoning given by adjudicating authority for non-imposition of penalties is correct and acceptable appeal rejected and impugned order upheld Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the respondent for service tax liability under commercial coaching or training Centre services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III. The revenue contended that the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty on the respondent despite finding them liable to discharge service tax liability under commercial coaching or training Centre services. The revenue argued that penalties should have been imposed as proposed in the show cause notice, particularly under section 76.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that they had also filed an appeal against the same impugned order. They presented the Tribunal's judgment that held against the revenue but reduced the demands raised within the limitation period, stating there was no intention to evade tax. The respondent challenged the judgment in the High Court, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority correctly exercised powers granted by section 80 of the Finance Act 1994.

The Tribunal deliberated on whether the adjudicating authority correctly dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice for penalties related to non-discharge of service tax liability by the respondent. The adjudicating authority considered the recognition of the courses conducted by the respondent but concluded that the courses did not fall under the category of "qualification recognized by law." The authority refrained from imposing penalties based on the respondent's justifiable reasons for non-discharge of service tax liability during the relevant period, citing Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the adjudicating authority correctly exercised its powers in not imposing penalties on the respondent. The reasoning provided for non-imposition of penalties was deemed acceptable, considering the justifiable reasons presented by the respondent. The impugned order was deemed legal and correct, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.