2018 (8) TMI 802 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - Business Auxiliary Services - Held that - There is no challenge to the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) as regards non-contest of the demand, and also by appreciating that the amount involved is not much on the higher side as also keeping in view that the period involved is almost more than 12 years old, the prayer of appellant cannot be accepted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand against the assessee along with penalty imposition.
2. Challenge to the imposition of penalty by the appellant.
3. Contesting the demand before the Tribunal on the grounds of the value of goods supplied not being considered in the value of services.
4. Estoppel argument by the Revenue due to non-contestation of demand before the Original and Appellate Authorities.
5. Prayers for remand and rejection of the appeal based on the amount involved and the duration of the case.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the confirmation of a service tax demand of ?2,41,790 against the assessee, coupled with an identical penalty, with an option for reduction if the demand is paid within 30 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant admitted the service tax liability but contested only the penalty imposition. The Commissioner upheld the penalties, emphasizing the appellant's suppression of facts and failure to deposit the tax amount received from a party into the Government Account, indicating an intention to evade tax. The Commissioner rejected the appeal based on these grounds.

The appellant, represented by their advocate, acknowledged not contesting the demand before the Commissioner (Appeals) but sought to challenge around ?38,000 of the demand before the Tribunal. The challenge was based on the argument that while providing Business Auxiliary Services, the value of goods supplied should not be included in the service value. The Revenue argued that the appellant, having not contested the demand earlier, should be estopped from doing so now. They highlighted the impracticality of verifying facts from records dating back 10 to 12 years.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, refused to entertain the appeal. They noted the lack of challenge to the Commissioner's findings on non-contestation of the demand, the relatively low amount involved, and the significant time lapse of over 12 years. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, maintaining the decision on the service tax demand and penalties.