9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 296 - AT - Service TaxConsulting Engineer Service - Bona fide belief that the Service Tax had been deposited by the Accountant in time - Accountant had left the service without any information - appellant immediately deposited the tax when they were informed by the Officers that the Accountant had not deposited the tax - commissioner is not justified in imposing penalty under sections 76 and 77 in its revision order, when adjudication authority itself has waived penalty in exercise of powers of section 80
Issues: Penalty under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994
Analysis: The case involved the appellant providing services under the category of 'Consulting Engineer Service' and failing to deposit tax within the stipulated period from 1-4-2005 to 30-9-2005. The adjudicating authority initially imposed a penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which was later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to 25% of the duty amount as the tax was deposited before the show-cause notice was issued. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise revised the order and imposed penalties under sections 76 and 77 of the Act. The appellant argued that their accountant, a part-time employee responsible for tax deposits, had withdrawn the tax amount for deposit but failed to do so before leaving the job without informing the appellant. Upon being informed by Central Excise Officers, the appellant promptly deposited the tax. The adjudicating authority, considering the bona fide belief of the appellant and following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case, waived the penalty under sections 76 and 77 of the Act using the powers under section 80. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had appropriately exercised the powers under section 80 based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Commissioner's revision order did not dispute the facts presented in the adjudication order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to impose penalties under sections 76 and 77. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
