2008 (10) TMI 86 - AT - Service Tax

Bank other than financial and banking business, is also engaged in providing training and coaching to employees non-payment of tax penalty no intention to evade tax rather it was a bona fide mistake - Since the appeal is limited only to penalty and the training/coaching facility is an internal facility for bank s employees only and is not the main commercial activity of the bank. I accept and agree with the appellant that no penalty is to be imposed on them

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand for service tax is barred by limitation.
2. Whether penalty imposition is justified due to non-reporting of commercial activity.
3. Whether penalty waiver is applicable in case of a bona fide mistake.

Issue 1:
The appellant, a public sector bank engaged in financial services and employee training, contested the service tax demand as time-barred. The appellant argued that they had no intention to evade tax, evidenced by their payment of service tax, interest, and penalty, indicating a bona fide mistake. The Ld. Advocate supported the appellant's position, emphasizing their compliance with tax obligations. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's intention and ruled that the non-payment of service tax was a genuine error. The appellant agreed not to contest the demand if the penalty was waived, leading to the Tribunal's decision to limit the appeal to the penalty issue only. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant.

Issue 2:
The Ld. SDR contended that the penalty was justified due to the appellant's failure to report the commercial activity to the tax department. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, found merit in the appellant's assertion that the training and coaching facility was an internal service for the bank's employees and not a primary commercial activity. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 1994, under section 80, allows for penalty waiver in cases of bona fide mistakes. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's position and decided not to impose any penalty, emphasizing the applicability of the waiver provision in this context.

Issue 3:
The key issue under consideration was whether the penalty waiver provision under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, applied to the appellant's case. The Tribunal, after evaluating the facts and arguments presented, concluded that the appellant's non-payment of service tax was indeed a bona fide mistake. The Ld. Advocate's assurance that the appellant would not contest the demand if the penalty was waived further supported the Tribunal's decision to limit the appeal to the penalty issue only. By invoking the waiver provision and considering the appellant's compliance with tax obligations, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to waive the penalties imposed on the appellant based on the bona fide nature of the mistake in non-payment of service tax.