2016 (7) TMI 997 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty - Non payment of service tax - bondafide belief - it was submitted that the appellant was not aware about the fact that the activities undertaken by it were subjected to levy of service tax under the head Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), which was brought to the service tax net with effect from 01.07.2003. - Held that - the period of dispute in this case is from 01.07.2003 to 30.03.2005. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant should get the benefit of section 80 ibid, and accordingly, Penalty imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid in the adjudication order should be set aside. However, since the appellant had defaulted in filing the returns and not obtained the registration certificate within the prescribed statutory time frame, we are of the view that imposition of penalty under Section 75A ibid by the authorities below is justified. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Non-payment of service tax within stipulated time limit; Waiver of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; Imposition of penalty under Section 75A for default in filing returns and obtaining registration certificate.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Delhi, regarding non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time limit. The appellant contended that the service tax along with interest was paid before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, attributing the non-payment to lack of awareness about the levy of service tax on their activities under "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS) introduced from 01.07.2003. The appellant sought waiver of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing reasonable cause for the delay. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the non-payment was due to a genuine belief that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the services provided, given the introduction of Business Auxiliary Service into the taxable net from 01.07.2003. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant should benefit from section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and set aside the penalties imposed under sections 76, 77, and 78. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 75A due to the appellant's default in filing returns and obtaining the registration certificate within the prescribed time frame.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside concerning the penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78, while confirming the penalty imposed under Section 75A. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal providing a detailed analysis and reasoning for its decision on each issue raised in the case.