2018 (9) TMI 184 - AT - Service Tax

Maintenance & Repair Services - extended period of limitation - penalty u/s 76 and 78 of FA - appellant contended that he being an illiterate was not aware of the fact that the services provided by him which were primarily in the nature of manpower for doing the given work, was taxable under the category of Maintenance & Repair Services - Held that - In the absence of any mala fide, the longer period of limitation was not available - demand beyond the period of limitation is not sustainable. Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 are also not sustainable. Matter remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the demand falling within the limitation period - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty under 'Maintenance & Repair Services'; Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act; Applicability of longer period of limitation; Benefit of limitation in the case of an illiterate appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where a demand of duty amounting to ?2,91,258 was confirmed against the appellant for providing 'Maintenance & Repair Services' to a company. The Original Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax but reduced the penalties. The appellant contended that due to being illiterate, he was unaware of the tax liability, and thus, the longer period of limitation should not apply. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where penalties were set aside due to lack of deliberate tax evasion or fraud.

The Tribunal noted that the penalties imposed were not justified as there was no deliberate evasion of tax or fraudulent intent on the part of the appellant. Citing the case of M/s Lal Singh, the Tribunal emphasized that penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were not sustainable in the absence of mala fide intentions. The Tribunal held that the demand beyond the normal period of limitation was not sustainable and remanded the matter for re-quantification within the limitation period. The judgment highlighted the confusion in the field of service tax and the appellant's lack of awareness due to being a laborer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to re-calculate the demand within the limitation period. The penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were also deemed unsustainable. The judgment provided relief to the appellant based on the lack of deliberate tax evasion and the confusion surrounding service tax liabilities for individuals like the appellant.