2022 (4) TMI 831 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service tax - GTA service - Manpower Supply Agency and Security Service - reverse charge mechanism - revenue neutrality - imposition of penalties - HELD THAT - The appellant admittedly has paid the service tax chargeable from them under reverse charge mechanism, on 31.10.2015, which was reflected in the return filed for the period 2014-15, which was filed on 21.01.2016. Further, appellant has also informed this fact of tax having been deposited vide letter dated 21.03.2017 before the Adjudicating Authority. Further, it appeared that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to take notice of the same as such representation has not been considered in the adjudication order. The appellant is manufacturing and clearing dutiable goods and are entitled to take cenvat credit of service tax payable under reverse charge mechanism. Hence, the situation is revenue neutral. In this view of the matter, the demand of ₹ 1,97,054/- as well as the penalty imposed under Section 78 of equal amount. Levy of penalties - HELD THAT - So far penalty under Section 70 read with Rule 7(C) is concerned, the same is excessive and is reduced to ₹ 5,000/- - So far penalty under Section 77 is concerned, the same is imposed for alleged violation of Rule 5(2) of Service Tax Rules, which provides that every assessee soon after filing of their ST-3 return for the first time shall provide a list to the Range Superintendent as regards the details of records, books of accounts maintained by them. Further, there is no alleged violation of the provisions of Section 66B and Section 68 read with Rule 5(2). Accordingly, penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 77 is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism
- Late filing of ST-3 returns
- Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act
- Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal
- Payment of service tax and interest under Section 75
- Adjudication of penalties under Sections 70, 77, and 78

Service Tax Liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism:
The appellant, a manufacturer of various products, received input services but failed to discharge service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism for the period in question. The Revenue demanded payment for the unpaid service tax and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. The appellant contended that they had already paid the service tax amount before the show cause notice was issued. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties, citing non-payment of interest under Section 75 as evidence of wilful suppression. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed paid the service tax chargeable under reverse charge mechanism, which was reflected in their filed return. As the appellant had also informed the Adjudicating Authority of the payment, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties imposed under Section 78.

Late Filing of ST-3 Returns:
In addition to the service tax liability issue, the appellant faced penalties for late filing of ST-3 returns. The late fee was imposed under Rule 7(C) of the Service Tax Rules. The appellant argued that they faced financial difficulties and had already filed the returns, albeit with a delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the financial crisis faced by the appellant and reduced the penalty amount from the proposed &8377; 20,500 to &8377; 5,000.

Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78:
Penalties were imposed on the appellant under various sections of the Act for non-compliance and alleged violations. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties, considering the failure to pay interest under Section 75 as a basis for imposing penalties under Section 78. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had paid the service tax and had informed the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the setting aside of the penalties imposed under Section 78. The penalty under Section 77 was also set aside as there was no violation of the relevant rules.

Appeal Process and Tribunal Decision:
The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal, reiterating their submissions. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both parties, found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties under Section 78, reduced the penalty under Section 70, and set aside the penalty under Section 77. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision on the issues of service tax liability, late filing of returns, and imposition of penalties favored the appellant, leading to the modification of the original order in their favor.