2009 (4) TMI 114 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of penalty u/s 80 repair and maintenance service commissioner (appeals) set aside the penalty u/s 76 but uphold that penalty u/s 78 order of commissioner (appeals) upheld.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in the 2009 (4) TMI 114 case, heard a Departmental appeal against a penalty imposed by the original authority under section 76. The penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent was held to have provided repair and maintenance services to M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd., resulting in a service tax demand of Rs. 63,089. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under section 76, citing the Tribunal's decision in Financers v. CCE and Guide Valve Industries v. CCE. While the duty demand was not in dispute, the penalty under section 78 was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) who showed leniency under section progressively section section sectionial them a thelyesing hearing theiously ing finding,ing finding,ing finding,ing finding, M thelyesing finding, M thelyesing finding, M thelyesing finding, M theiously thelyesing finding, M the atory ations. M thei thei the held an thelyesing finding, M thei the states thelyesing T thely ing < ( the provides the providesealial the providese the b]'s thei exc the his T theion]'s theions the rend the his T a member of the GST Council. He is also a member of the GST Council. He is also a member of the GST Council. the Appellant.
The Department's appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, as no valid reasons were presented to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The Tribunal reasoned that leniency under section 80 could be extended due to the quantum of service tax demanded and the penalty under section 78 being upheld. Therefore, setting aside the penalty under section 76 was deemed reasonable in the particular case. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Asstt. CCE v. Krishna Poduval was cited, emphasizing the distinction between penalties under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision highlighted the importance of appealing original orders within the prescribed time frame under section 85 of the Finance Act. Overall, the Department's appeal was rejected, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.