2018 (8) TMI 1508 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of reduced Penalty - case of Revenue is that Tribunal had observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only remanded for re-computation of tax liability and penalty and therefore the appellant cannot put forward the plea to set aside the penalty - Held that - The said request for confining the penalty to 25% of the service tax demand is reasonable when taking note of the fact that the appellant has deposited 25% of the penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,89,316/- in the earlier round of adjudication, which in denovo proceedings could have been adjusted towards the interest liability. Instead the appellant has been asked to deposit the interest (revised amount) and 25% of reduced penalty by the adjudicating authority. This was indeed burdening of the assessee who has opted to pay up the amount. The benefit of reduced penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,44,096/- allowed - remaining part of the order is not disturbed - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax liability and penalty imposition for non-payment of service tax by a manpower recruitment agency.
2. Adjustment of penalty amount and interest payment delay.
3. Applicability of reduced penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a manpower recruitment agency that failed to pay service tax amounting to ?7,57,262 for the period April 2012 to September 2012. The original authority confirmed the tax demand and imposed penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for re-quantification of the tax liability and penalties after considering the appellant's plea for abatement under Notification 30/2012-ST. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Commissioner (Appeals) had only directed for re-computation without setting aside the penalties.

2. The appellant had previously deposited 25% of the penalty amount, which the adjudicating authority failed to adjust in the denovo proceedings. Additionally, there was a delay in paying interest of ?1,49,846. The appellant requested to adjust the penalty amount and sought the benefit of reduced penalty under proviso 3 to Section 78. The Tribunal noted the burden on the appellant and modified the order to grant the benefit of reduced penalty to the tune of ?1,44,096, considering the amount already deposited and the interest liability.

3. The appellant's argument to set aside the penalty invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not accepted. However, the Tribunal found the request for confining the penalty to 25% of the service tax demand reasonable. The appellant was asked to deposit the revised interest amount and 25% of the reduced penalty. The Tribunal deemed this adjustment fair and partly allowed the appeal by modifying the order to grant the benefit of reduced penalty while upholding the remaining aspects of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case focused on the re-quantification of tax liability and penalties for non-payment of service tax by the manpower recruitment agency. The Tribunal considered the appellant's previous penalty deposit and interest payment delay, ultimately granting the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.