2008 (6) TMI 95 - AT - Service Tax

Franchiser of NIIT teaching computer courses - when they came to know that the tax is payable, they discharged the duty liability along with the interest - Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that there is no justification for imposition of any penalty as there is no suppression of facts held that if Revenue has relied on the case relating to Central Excise while appealing against the impugned order, then Commissioner cannot be challenged for relying on the same

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalties under Section 78 and 76 for non-payment of Service tax by franchiser of computer courses.

Analysis:
1. The respondents, as franchisers of computer courses, did not pay Service tax on the advice of the franchiser during the relevant period. Upon realizing the tax liability, they paid the duty along with interest. The Original Authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties under Section 78 and 76. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty proceedings, considering the circumstances.

2. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's decision, citing judgments from various High Courts and CESTAT benches. They argued that penalties should be imposed based on precedents. The CESTAT noted the Revenue's reliance on Central Excise cases while challenging the Commissioner's order, despite claiming that the cases cited by the Commissioner were not applicable to Service tax. The CESTAT found this argument contradictory and illogical.

3. After carefully examining the issue, the CESTAT upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the facts were properly considered, and there was no suppression of facts. The CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the impugned order was legal and appropriate. The judgment highlighted the inconsistency in Revenue's arguments and affirmed the Commissioner's decision to drop the penalty proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved in the appeal against the imposition of penalties for non-payment of Service tax by the franchiser of computer courses. The judgment emphasizes the proper consideration of facts by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismisses the Revenue's appeal based on the lack of justification for finding fault with the order.