2018 (3) TMI 1774 - AT - Service Tax

Broadcasting Service - Advertising Space or Time Service - Consulting Engineer Service - Service tax with interest and penalty paid on being pointed out - cum-tax benefit not passed - imposition of penalties - HELD THAT - Since the appellant concedes that it had already deposited the Serviced Tax alongwith interest for providing the taxable services, we are not considering the merits of the case as to whether service tax is payable by the appellant or not. However, we find that the Cum-tax benefit has not been extended to the appellant in this case, to which it is legally entitled to. The matter should go back to the original authority for a limited purpose of re-quantification of the service tax liability. Penalty u/s 77 and 78 of FA - HELD THAT - Since there is reasonable cause for non-payment of Service Tax within the stipulated time frame, the provisions of Section 80 of the Act can be invoked for non-imposition of penalties under Section 77 78 of the Act - Penalty set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Identification of taxable services provided by the appellant, non-payment of Service Tax, imposition of penalty, cum-tax benefit, applicability of Section 80 of the Act for penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. Taxable Services Identification:
The appellant, a Corporation under the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, provided taxable services like "Broadcasting Service," "Advertising Space or Time Service," and "Consulting Engineer Service" during the disputed period. The Audit Wing of the Service Tax Department noted non-payment of Service Tax for these services, leading to the discharge of the duty liability by the appellant subsequently.

2. Penalty Imposition:
The Department confirmed the entire Service Tax liability, including interest, and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The appellant's advocate acknowledged the liability for Service Tax but argued for the extension of cum-tax benefit and invoked Section 80 of the Act to avoid penalty imposition. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, supported the findings in the impugned order.

3. Judgment on Cum-Tax Benefit and Penalty Imposition:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's payment of Service Tax with interest for the taxable services provided. While refraining from delving into the merits of the case regarding Service Tax liability, the Tribunal noted the non-extension of cum-tax benefit to the appellant, which it was legally entitled to receive. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original authority for re-quantification of the actual Service Tax liability. Moreover, considering a reasonable cause for the delay in payment, the Tribunal invoked Section 80 of the Act to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 & 78.

4. Final Disposition:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by directing the re-quantification of the Service Tax liability and nullifying the penalties under Section 77 & 78. The judgment highlighted the entitlement of the appellant to the cum-tax benefit and the applicability of Section 80 to avoid penalty imposition due to a reasonable cause for non-payment within the stipulated time frame.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI encapsulates the issues of taxable services identification, penalty imposition, cum-tax benefit extension, and the application of Section 80 of the Act for penalty imposition, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.