2020 (9) TMI 831 - AT - Service Tax

Quantum of penalty - Both the assessee and Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Assessee had challenged 15% of penalty whereas Revenue has prayed for enhancement of penalty to 50% - HELD THAT - Learned Counsel for the appellant confirms that they have filed declaration form SVLDRS-1 on 22.10.2019 and accordingly they have been issued final settlement certificate in Form-SVLDRS-4 dated 05.12.2019. Thus, the dispute in these appeals stand settled as regards the tax, interest and penalty matter. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the settlement between the parties.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
2. Appeal by both assessee and Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding penalty.
3. Disposal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to conflicting decisions on penalty.
4. Filing of declaration form SVLDRS-1 and issuance of final settlement certificate in Form-SVLDRS-4.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the confirmation of demand amounting to ?11,57,788/- and the imposition of penalty at 15% under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The order-in-original dated 23.11.2017 confirmed the demand and penalty. The appellant challenged the penalty, leading to subsequent appeals by both the assessee and Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeals differently, upholding the 15% penalty under Section 78 for the assessee and enhancing the penalty to 50% for Revenue. This discrepancy in the decisions on penalty led to the filing of two appeals against the appellate orders arising from the same order-in-original.

3. The judgment highlighted that the appellant filed declaration form SVLDRS-1 on 22.10.2019 and received a final settlement certificate in Form-SVLDRS-4 dated 05.12.2019. This settlement between the parties resolved the dispute concerning tax, interest, and penalty matters. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of based on the settlement reached by the parties, effectively concluding the legal proceedings.

4. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial), and involved legal representation by Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellant, and Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the respondent. The final decision to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the settlement between the parties was pronounced in open court, bringing closure to the legal proceedings in the matter.