2018 (2) TMI 146 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 78 of FA - construction of a false ceiling on works contract basis - payment of tax with interest on being pointed out - Held that - during the relevant period, there was lot of confusion in the field and the law came to be settled with the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that - the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, stand extended to the appellants and penalties stand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of respondent's name and address in the appeal.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 1: Change of respondent's name and address in the appeal
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking to change the respondent's name and address in the appeal filed by M/s. Diamond Dicor due to the re-organization of the department. The appellant now falls under the jurisdiction of the new Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The respondent's name was replaced with the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai-North Commissionerate, along with the new address for future correspondences.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
The challenge in the appeal was regarding the imposition of a penalty of ?5,90,318/- on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was engaged in the construction of a false ceiling on a works contract basis, which the Revenue considered taxable under Commercial Construction Services. A demand of approximately ?13,00,000/- was raised for the period from 16.05.2005 to 31.03.2009. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority, including interest and penalty.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand to the extent of ?5,90,318/- for the period after 01.06.2007 under the Works Contract category, following a Supreme Court decision. The appellant contended that they had already paid the duty and interest, with the only challenge being the imposition of the penalty under Section 78. The appellant argued that there was confusion in the field during the relevant period, which was later clarified by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The appellant cited various Tribunal decisions where penalties were set aside in similar circumstances, emphasizing the settled law by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside while upholding the confirmation of demand and interest, as they were not challenged by the appellants.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee. The miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for the change of cause title was also disposed of accordingly.