2018 (3) TMI 1628 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - evasion of Service Tax for the period 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 - Held that - The assessee-Appellant/Respondent himself has deposited the major part of the demand pertaining to the Service Tax. It shows that the assessee-Appellant/Respondent has accepted that he was liable to pay the Service Tax which was not paid during the period under consideration - demand upheld. Penalty u/s 76 - Held that - The assessee-Appellant/Respondent has himself paid the major part of the Service Tax demand. In these circumstances, the appellate authority has dropped the penalty under Section 76 which appears reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case - penalty u/s 78 upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service Tax evasion by the assessee-Appellant/Respondent.
2. Appeal against the common Order-in-Appeal.
3. Penalty under Section 76 and Section 78.
4. Admissibility of penalty under Section 76.
5. Upholding of impugned order by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals - one by the assessee-Appellant and the other by the Department, both challenging the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The case involves the evasion of Service Tax by the assessee-Appellant/Respondent during the period from 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2007, amounting to &8377; 8,65,658/- including cess. The assessee had already paid a significant portion of the demand but still proceeded with the appeal. The Department's appeal was based on the dropping of penalty under Section 76 by the Commissioner (Appeals), which they contested. The Tribunal heard the Department's representative, and in the absence of the assessee, examined the case based on the available records.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had acknowledged their liability by paying a substantial part of the Service Tax demand. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal regarding the Service Tax demand. The appellate authority had upheld the penalty under Section 78 but dropped the penalty under Section 76, citing specific reasons. Given that the assessee had already settled a major portion of the Service Tax, the Tribunal found the dropping of penalty under Section 76 reasonable in the circumstances of the case and in line with the litigation policy. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the impugned order, taking into account the rationale provided in the decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, filed by the assessee-Appellant/Respondent and the Revenue, thereby upholding the Order-in-Appeal and the decisions regarding the penalty under Section 76 and Section 78. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with tax obligations and the consideration of specific circumstances in determining penalties, as evidenced by the Tribunal's detailed analysis and ultimate decision to maintain the impugned order.