2018 (11) TMI 170 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability - amount paid by the respondent to the agents appointed abroad - reverse charge mechanism - Held that - The respondent assessee had given justifiable reason for not discharging the service tax liability during the period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 - there is no reason to interfere in such a reasonable order passed by the 1st appellate authority in setting aside the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Sections 76, 77 & 78 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Taxability of amount paid to agents appointed abroad under reverse charge mechanism, applicability of penalties under Sections 76, 77, & 78 of the Finance Act 1994.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved the taxability of amounts paid by the respondent to agents appointed abroad under the reverse charge mechanism for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008. The Revenue authorities sought to tax these payments, leading to the confirmation of the demand along with interest and penalties by the adjudicating authority. The 1st Appellate Authority set aside the demands raised for the period prior to 18.04.2006 based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the Apex Court, while confirming the demands for the period post 18.04.2006, including educational cess and interest. However, the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority were set aside by the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal seeking restoration of the penalties under Sections 76, 77, & 78.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the majority of the demand pertained to the period prior to 18.04.2006, which was unsustainable based on the Apex Court's ruling. The Tribunal acknowledged the justifiable reasons provided by the respondent for not discharging the service tax liability during the period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2008, as accepted by the 1st appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the 1st Appellate Authority's decision to set aside the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Sections 76, 77, & 78. The Tribunal agreed with the 1st Appellate Authority's invocation of Section 80 for setting aside the penalties, deeming it appropriate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was correct and legal, requiring no interference. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal pronounced the operative portion of the order in open court on the conclusion of the hearing.