2018 (11) TMI 1037 - AT - Service Tax

Construction of Residential Complex Service - short payment of service tax - according to Revenue, appellant were not entitled for availing abatement - Held that - The learned Commissioner while passing the said Order-In-Original dated 27 November, 2015 examined all conditions for admissibility of abatement under said notification and held that appellant had fulfilled all the conditions required for availing the said N/N. 01/2006-ST dated 01 March, 2006 - for the period covered by the present appeal appellant was entitled for said abatement - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing Service Tax returns and payment.
2. Claiming abatement without proper documentation.
3. Show cause notice for penalties and demands.
4. Order-In-Original confirming penalties and demands.
5. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent appeal to the Tribunal.
6. Interpretation of abatement eligibility and its impact on penalties and demands.

Analysis:
1. The case involved delays in filing Service Tax returns and payment by the appellant. The Revenue noticed delays in filing ST-3 returns for various periods, leading to a scrutiny and subsequent show cause notice for penalties and demands.

2. Another issue highlighted was the appellant claiming abatement without mentioning the required serial number of the notification. This raised concerns for the Revenue regarding the entitlement of the appellant to avail abatement, leading to a show cause notice with specific penalties and demands.

3. The show cause notice resulted in an Order-In-Original imposing penalties and confirming demands against the appellant. The penalties included late filing penalties, failure to pay service tax penalties, demand confirmation, interest imposition, and penalties for evasion of service tax.

4. Aggrieved by the Order-In-Original, the appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original order. The appellant then approached the Tribunal seeking relief from the penalties and demands imposed.

5. During the Tribunal proceedings, the appellant argued for abatement eligibility based on similar decisions in subsequent periods. The Tribunal considered previous orders and found that the appellant was entitled to abatement for the period in question, leading to the setting aside of the confirmed demand, interest, and penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

6. The Tribunal's decision focused on the eligibility of the appellant for abatement, which impacted the demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the demand amounting to &8377; 7,68,232/- along with interest and equal penalty, while not interfering with other aspects of the impugned order.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the progression of the case from the initial show cause notice to the final decision by the Tribunal, emphasizing the significance of abatement eligibility in determining penalties and demands in Service Tax matters.