2017 (6) TMI 977 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 77 and 78 - demand of tax with interest and penalty u/s 76 is already paid before issuance of SCN - Held that - the authorities below have erred in imposing and maintaining penalty under Section 77 for non maintenance and non assessing the service tax liability because till 09.05.2008 the provisions of said Section 77, covered only imposition of penalty for such contraventions for which there was no provision for imposing penalty - penalty u/s 77 and 78 set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing services under the category of "Commercial Training and Coaching," was issued a show cause notice for the recovery of service tax and imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority confirmed the demand for service tax, appropriated the duty and interest already paid, and imposed penalties under the mentioned sections. The appellant contested the penalties but not the service tax levy. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties through the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 08.08.2012. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal challenging the penalties imposed.

Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the penalties under Section 77 for non-maintenance and non-assessment of service tax liability were incorrectly imposed. The Tribunal noted that until 09.05.2008, Section 77 did not cover penalties for contraventions where no specific penalty provision existed. As the penalty under Section 76 had already been paid, the Tribunal ruled out the imposition of penalty under Section 78. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, modifying the Order-in-Original to set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was thus allowed in favor of the appellant, and the penalties were revoked accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the incorrect imposition and maintenance of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. By carefully analyzing the provisions and the appellant's submissions, the Tribunal determined that the penalties were not justified in the present case. This decision highlights the importance of accurately applying penalty provisions in tax matters and ensuring that penalties are imposed only where legally permissible and appropriate.