9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1615 - AT - Service TaxPenalty u/s 77 and 78 - demand of Interest - The appellant was neither registered with the department nor paid service tax in respect of the services rendered by her - Held that - the appellants have paid the entire service tax along with interest - also, the appellants have not collected the service tax - Revenue has also not brought any evidence on record showing that the appellants have suppressed the material facts from the department with intention to evade payment of service tax. Further, the appellants are women from a small village and not much educated and, therefore, were ignorant about the provisions of the Service Tax. Penalty set aside by invoking section 80 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Section 77 and 78 - Applicability of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The appellants filed two appeals against orders rejecting their appeal on penalties under Section 77 and 78. The issue in both appeals being identical, they were disposed of together. The appellant, a commission agent, provided services to various entities without being registered or paying service tax. A show cause notice was issued, demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, classifying the service as business auxiliary. The appellant appealed, arguing that they paid the service tax and interest before the notice, and lacked intent to evade tax due to ignorance. The Revenue contended the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had paid the service tax and interest, never collected service tax, and no evidence showed intent to evade tax. The appellants, women from a small village with limited education, were ignorant of service tax provisions. Considering these factors, the Tribunal found the appellants eligible for the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the penalties were dropped, and both appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
|
