2007 (12) TMI 155 - AT - Service Tax

Tax paid in spite of dispute of tax liability of service recipient as Goods Transport Operator - whether retrospective amendment to recovery provisions can revive time-barred demand - when there is a dispute of interpretation of provision of law, the penal provisions cannot be invoked penalty rightly set aside by Comm(A) as per Not. 4/03, interest shall be paid after 6 months from 14-5-03, on default in payment of tax hence Comm (A) correctly modified the adj. order on recovery of interest

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77
- Modification of period of payment of interest

Imposition of Penalty under Sections 76 and 77:
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order which set aside the penalty under Sections 76 and 77. The Revenue argued that the respondent paid the tax after the specified period mentioned in Notification No. 4/03-S.T., and therefore, interest and penalty as per the notification should apply. The Revenue contended that penal consequences were clearly stipulated in the notification, making Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 inapplicable. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate argued that since the tax liability was in dispute, penal provisions should not be invoked. The Tribunal had referred a similar matter to the Larger Bench to decide on the revival of time-barred demand due to a retrospective amendment to recovery provisions. In this case, the respondent paid the tax without protest and did not dispute the payment, indicating that penal provisions should not be applied in cases of disputed interpretation of the law. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the payment of interest and set aside the penalty, a decision upheld by the Tribunal.

Modification of Period of Payment of Interest:
The Notification No. 4/03-S.T. mandated the payment of tax and return within six months failing which interest and penal consequences would follow. The Tribunal noted that the respondent paid the tax after the specified period, and therefore, interest should be paid after six months from the notification date. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly modified the adjudication order on the recovery of interest, considering the timeline specified in the notification. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, upholding the modification of the period of payment of interest and the setting aside of the penalty under Sections 76 and 77 based on the specific circumstances and interpretations of the law presented during the case proceedings.