2009 (10) TMI 18 - HC - Service Tax

Job Worker Delayed Payment of Service Tax with interest waiver of penalty held that - The Tribunal has also extended the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, which says that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76 or 78 of the Finance Act, no penalty is to be imposed on the dealer-respondent for any failure referred to in those provisions the decision of CESTAT upheld.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order invoking Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act; Exemption under notification No. 25/2004 for service of job workers; Payment of Service Tax by dealer-respondent on 25.1.2007; Confirmation of amount deposited by dealer-respondent by Adjudicating Authority; Absence of willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by dealer-respondent; Benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act; Explanation of dealer-respondent regarding exemption notification; Imposition of penalty under Section 76 or 78 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:
The High Court was approached by the revenue challenging the Tribunal's order dated 1.1.2008, invoking Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had found that the dealer-respondent provided job worker services, previously exempted under notification No. 25/2004, but brought under Service Tax from 10.9.2004. The dealer-respondent paid the Service Tax on 25.1.2007 with interest, confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal concluded there was no willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the dealer-respondent to evade tax, a requirement for invoking Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal also granted the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, stating no penalty should be imposed if a reasonable cause for failure is shown. The dealer-respondent's explanation regarding the exemption notification was accepted, leading to the Tribunal's decision that no penalty should be imposed under Sections 76 or 78 of the Finance Act.

Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the record, the High Court found that the Tribunal had made factual findings regarding the reasons presented by the dealer-respondent, and had accepted the dealer-respondent's good faith in accordance with Section 80 of the Finance Act. Consequently, the High Court declined to admit the appeal, as no substantial legal question meriting determination was identified, a prerequisite for appeal admission under Section 83 of the Finance Act in conjunction with Section 35-G of the Excise Act. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.