2018 (5) TMI 35 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act 1994 - non-endorsement of Registration certificate incorporating GTA Service - Held that - Even though the appellants are registered with the Dept. in providing taxable service viz., construction service however, the registration certificate has not been endorsed with the GTA services - the applicant paid the entire amount of Service Tax with interest and the proceedings have been concluded under relevant provisions of Finance Act 1994 - penalty not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sec. 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act 1994 for non-endorsement of Registration certificate incorporating GTA Service.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of penalty under Sec. 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act 1994 for non-endorsement of Registration certificate incorporating GTA Service:

The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the imposition of a penalty under Sec. 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act 1994 for non-endorsement of the Registration certificate with GTA services. The appellant argued that despite being registered for providing 'construction service,' they failed to endorse the Registration certificate for discharging Service Tax on GTA services. The appellant contended that they had paid the entire Service Tax liability with interest before the show cause notice was issued, and the proceedings were concluded under Sec 73 (3) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant cited a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd vs CCE in support of their argument.

The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the penalty. However, the Member (Judicial) noted that the appellant had paid the entire Service Tax with interest, and the proceedings were concluded under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act 1994. Despite being registered for 'construction service,' the Registration certificate was not endorsed with GTA services. Following the principles established in the case of SRF Ltd, the Member (Judicial) concluded that there was no justification for imposing a penalty of ?2,86,800 under Sec. 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994.

In the final decision, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments presented by both parties, the relevant provisions of the Finance Act 1994, and the application of precedent in reaching the decision to set aside the penalty imposed for non-endorsement of the Registration certificate incorporating GTA Service.