9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 307 - AT - Service TaxEnhancement of penalty - issue involved in this case is regarding the discharge of service tax liability - entire amount of service tax, which was due, was paid on 12-7-2004. The Amnesty Scheme, which was introduced by the Central Government for non-imposition of penalty, if the Service Tax liability and interest thereof is paid before 30-10-2004, squarely applies in this case - penalty imposed on the appellant is liable to be set aside
Issues involved:
1. Stay application against Order-in-Revision 2. Enhancement of penalty on the appellant 3. Discharge of service tax liability and applicability of Amnesty Scheme Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a stay application against Order-in-Revision No. 151/NSK/06/819 dated 29-1-2007. The Member (J) found that the appeal itself could be disposed of at that juncture after granting the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount mentioned in the order. 2. The main issue in this case revolved around the enhancement of penalty on the appellant. Initially, the adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs.100/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Commissioner, through a show cause notice, sought to impose a penalty under Section 76, eventually imposing a penalty of Rs. 17,929/-. The Tribunal noted that the issue was related to the discharge of service tax liability by the appellant. It was highlighted that the entire service tax amount due was paid on 12-7-2004. The Tribunal also referenced the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the Central Government, which exempted penalties if the service tax liability and interest were paid before 30-10-2004. Drawing from a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal emphasized that law-abiding assesses who complied with the tax laws should not be denied the benefit of waiver of penal provisions. 3. Considering the above factors, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was unjust and set it aside. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
