2016 (1) TMI 151 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - benefit of Section 80 - Held that - Bonafides of the respondent are not in doubt. Had he been informed and known about the law, he was always willing to pay the liability of service tax; as soon as he came to know about his liability, he made the payment. The facts on record go in favour of the respondents and this is a situation where provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994 would be applicable. There is no proper justification and substance in the appeal of the appellant - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the assessee.
2. Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) withdrawing the penalty.
3. Imposition of penalty on the respondent.
4. Applicability of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994.

Analysis:
1. The matter revolves around the provision of giving the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the assessee, Mr. M. Madhusudhan, Proprietor, Manasaa Contractor. Section 80 states that no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee if it is proved that there was a reasonable cause for the failure referred to in the provisions of section 76, section 77, or section 78.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Hyderabad-I has appealed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) where the respondent was given the benefit of Section 80, withdrawing the penalty imposed earlier. The Department argues that the penalties should be imposed again and recovered from the respondent. The appellant contends that the penalty is imposable, even though the respondent is semi-literate and unaware of English, knowing only Telugu.

3. The learned Commissioner (A.R.), Mr. Ajay Saxena, representing the appellant, argued for the imposition of penalties, stating that the respondent's ignorance of statutory provisions does not absolve him from penalty liability. However, upon examination of the facts, it was found that the bonafides of the respondent are not in doubt. The respondent was willing to pay the service tax liability as soon as he became aware of it, indicating a lack of mala fide intent.

4. The adjudicating authority found that the respondent's lack of awareness of the law and prompt payment upon notification support the application of Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. The order-in-appeal was upheld, rejecting the appellant's appeal as the facts favored the respondent, and there was no substantial justification for imposing penalties again. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.