2016 (12) TMI 931 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalty - section 80 of the act - Held that - we find that in fact the issue on merits is also no more res integra and stands decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of CCE Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT laying down that works contract were not taxable prior to 1.6.2007. The fact of settling the issue at the apex Court level itself reflects upon the fact that the issue was not clear and attained finality only recently. The appellant having not contested the service tax liability and having deposited the same even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, we are of the view that invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act by Commissioner was justified - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of service tax demand and dropping of penal proposal under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the confirmation of service tax demand against the respondent while dropping the penal proposal under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had deposited the entire service tax along with interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The appellant contended that the service rendered by them fell under works contract, citing various judgments that had conflicting views on the taxability of composite contracts. The Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention, stating that if the assessee had a bonafide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax due to conflicting views of the courts, penalties could be waived under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner concluded that no penalties were required to be imposed on the assessee.

The issue on merits regarding the taxability of works contracts was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CCE Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which held that works contracts were not taxable prior to 1.6.2007. The judgment indicated that the issue was not clear and had only recently attained finality. Since the appellant had not contested the service tax liability and had already deposited the tax before the show cause notice, the invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act by the Commissioner was deemed justified. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing the settled issue at the Supreme Court level and the appellant's compliance with the tax liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the penal proposal under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, considering the bonafide belief of the assessee due to conflicting views of the courts on works contracts. The Tribunal found the issue on taxability of works contracts prior to 1.6.2007 was settled by the Supreme Court's decision, and since the appellant had already paid the service tax before the show cause notice, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.