2019 (2) TMI 83 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act 1994 - demand along with applicable interest was paid before the issuance of the SCN - Held that - Revenue has neither suspected the bona fides of the appellant nor alleged suppression fraud wilful mis-statement etc. - also It is not the case of the Revenue that the tax was not paid/short paid or paid after the demand was raised against the appellant herein and hence the findings of this Bench in the case of M/s. Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (9) TMI 825 - CESTAT CHENNAI is squarely applicable where it was held that The conduct of the appellant in paying up service tax and interest and the categoric finding of the Commissioner that there is no intention to evade tax persuades us to hold that appellant has established reasonable cause for invoking Section 80 of the Act ibid. Penalty not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Sustainability of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The only ground raised by the appellant was regarding the sustainability of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's representative argued that the demand along with applicable interest was paid before the Show Cause Notice was issued and requested the penalty to be waived invoking the proviso to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant cited precedents from the Tribunal to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings and urged for the penalty to be sustained.

During the hearing, the appellant's representative presented their case, emphasizing that the appellant had paid the service tax and interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, demonstrating no intention to evade tax. The Tribunal examined the precedents cited by the appellant and noted that the tax was not unpaid or underpaid after the demand was raised, making the cited precedents applicable. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to another case where penalties were set aside by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the materials on record, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not question the appellant's bona fides or allege any fraudulent behavior. Based on the precedents and lack of suspicion regarding the appellant's conduct, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unjustified and set it aside. The Tribunal allowed the Department's Miscellaneous Application for a change in the cause title and ultimately allowed the appeal.