2017 (4) TMI 856 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalties u/s 76, 77 and 78 of the FA, 1994 - payments made to the overseas parties - Held that - the appellant have discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereof for the period 18/04/2006 onwards on the amounts paid by them to the overseas service providers as provided u/s 66A of the FA, 1994 - the entire service tax along with interest thereof has already been paid by the appellant on being pointed out. Since the appellant has already paid the entire tax liability along with interest before issuance of show cause notice, we find that the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner V. Manipal County 2011 (9) TMI 1094 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT will apply where it was held that provisions of Section 73(3) of the FA, 1994 will be applicable in cases wherein appellant has discharged service tax liability and the interest thereof on being pointed out by the authorities before the issuance of the SCN, and there is no necessity to issue SCN for penalties - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. Background and Facts:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs with units across the country and a registered office in Mumbai, availed services from overseas parties. The dispute arose regarding the taxation of payments made to overseas parties for the period from 1st July 2003 to March 2008. The Commissioner of Central Excise (LTU), Mumbai, confirmed the demands raised after 18/04/2006, along with interest and penalties.

2. Appellant's Submission:
The appellant contested only the penalties imposed, as they had already paid the service tax amount along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant's counsel argued against the imposition of penalties.

3. Revenue's Argument:
The Commissioner (AR) contended that penalties should be imposed, citing the existence of the law from 18/04/2006 onwards.

4. Tribunal's Findings:
Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had discharged the service tax liability along with interest from 18/04/2006 onwards, as mandated by Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that during the relevant period, there was ambiguity in the law until the High Court of Bombay clarified the matter in a specific case.

5. Legal Precedents and Decision:
Considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal referred to judgments by the High Court of Karnataka, emphasizing the applicability of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal cited cases where the High Court ruled that if the appellant had paid the service tax liability and interest before the show cause notice was issued, penalties need not be imposed separately.

6. Judgment and Conclusion:
In line with the legal precedents and the appellant's compliance with tax liabilities and interest before the show cause notice, the Tribunal allowed the appeal challenging the penalties imposed. The penalties were set aside, and the appeal was granted on this specific issue.

7. Operative Part of the Judgment:
The Tribunal pronounced the operative part in court, setting aside the penalties and allowing the appeal on the grounds related to the contested penalties.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects of the judgment, including the background, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.