9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 321 - AT - Service TaxConstruction of Commercial or Industrial Complex Service - Construction of Residential Complex Service - after due process of law, demand was confirmed by the Original Authority - HELD THAT - On perusal of records it is seen that the appellant has not contested the demand confirmed on the disputed services on merits. Therefore, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority with regard to the confirmation of demand on merits has attained finality and we do not consider to apply the decision of the Tribunal in REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI in the instant case. However, taking note of the fact that the issue presently stands covered in favour of the appellant and also that the appellant has paid up major portion of the Service Tax liability before issuance of the Show Cause Notice and later paid up the balance amount, we are of the considered opinion that the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be extended to the appellant - The penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 ibid are therefore set aside, without disturbing confirmation of Service Tax demand or interest thereon. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act 2. Penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act 3. Applicability of Section 80 of the Finance Act Analysis: 1. Penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act: The case involved a dispute regarding the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Original Authority had imposed a penalty of &8377; 3,41,152/- on the service provider for non-payment of service tax, which was later increased by the Commissioner (Appeals) to &8377; 39,80,678/-. The Commissioner restricted the penalty to 25% of the increased amount, subject to payment within 30 days. The appellant argued that they had paid a significant portion of the service tax liability before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and had subsequently paid the remaining amount along with interest. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, extended the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant. As a result, the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 were set aside, while the confirmation of the service tax demand and interest was upheld. 2. Penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act: Additionally, a penalty of &8377; 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act for non-filing of ST3 returns by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this penalty, stating that the respondents were registered with the department under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service." However, the Tribunal did not disturb this penalty while setting aside the penalties under Sections 77 and 78, as the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were considered mutually exclusive. 3. Applicability of Section 80 of the Finance Act: The appellant had argued for the benefit of cum-tax value and cited a previous Tribunal decision in support of their case. While the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's payment of a significant portion of the service tax liability before the Show Cause Notice, it noted that the appellant had not contested the demand confirmed on the disputed services on merits. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to extend the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant, setting aside the penalties under Sections 77 and 78, without affecting the confirmation of the service tax demand or interest. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential reliefs as per law and setting aside the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 while upholding the service tax demand and interest.
|
