2016 (1) TMI 480 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty - first appellate authority has reduced the penalty imposed under Section 78 to 25% of the tax liability and also set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 for the period September 2007 to 9th May 2008 relying upon the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - it is settled that the judgement on a particular issue which passed by a Jurisdictional High Court, judicial discipline needs to be followed in preference to any other judgements. In view of this, I find that the impugned order which extended the benefit of 25% of payment of penalty to the respondent is incorrect and liable to be set aside and I do so. As regards the simultaneous penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 for the period September 2007 to 9th May 2008, I find that the respondent is required to discharge the penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India 2015 (1) TMI 856 - SUPREME COURT . Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of penalty under Section 78 by the first appellate authority.
2. Imposition of simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78 for a specific period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reduction of penalty under Section 78
The Revenue appealed against the first appellate authority's decision to reduce the penalty under Section 78 to 25% of the tax liability. The Revenue argued that the authority erred in granting this reduction as the respondent had not paid the required amounts within the stipulated time. The Revenue cited legal precedents, including judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, to support their position that the benefit of reduced penalty cannot be extended beyond the prescribed time limit. The Consultant for the respondent, however, relied on a circular and other court judgments to justify the reduction. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found in favor of the Revenue, stating that the appellate authority's decision to extend the benefit of reduced penalty was incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court, ultimately setting aside the reduction of penalty.

Issue 2: Simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78
Regarding the imposition of simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78 for a specific period, the Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India. The Tribunal held that the respondent was indeed required to discharge the penalties under both sections, affirming the legality of imposing simultaneous penalties. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, leading to the decision in favor of the Revenue on this issue as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue on both issues, setting aside the reduction of penalty under Section 78 and affirming the imposition of simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78 for the specified period, based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant provisions.