2010 (6) TMI 118 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty- in this case revenue filed the appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who waived the penalty imposed on the appellant. Held that- Mere saying that the assessee has failed to prove reasonable cause is not sufficient in the absence of any evidence showing that the Commissioner (Appeal) has exercised the powers arbitrary, is not sustainable. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues: Waiver of penalties under Section 76, 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The judgment involves a case where the Commissioner (Appeals) waived penalties under Section 76, 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant did not pay Service Tax intentionally due to business setbacks caused by fake delivery problems. The company faced financial losses, administrative issues, and was declared defaulters by NSE authorities. The Revenue contended that waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, is conditional on proving a reasonable cause for failure to pay Service Tax. The Advocate cited a Bombay High Court decision stating that the authority has discretion to interfere with imposed penalties under Section 76 of the Central Excise Act read with Section 80. The Member (Judicial) found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had properly exercised discretion under Section 80 based on the circumstances presented and that the Revenue failed to show any arbitrariness in the decision. The Member upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In this judgment, the primary issue revolved around the waiver of penalties under Section 76, 77, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) had waived the penalties citing extraordinary circumstances faced by the appellant due to fake delivery problems leading to financial losses and administrative issues. The Revenue challenged this waiver, arguing that under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the assessee must prove a reasonable cause for failure to pay Service Tax. The Advocate relied on a previous Bombay High Court decision to support the argument that the authority has discretion to interfere with imposed penalties. The Member (Judicial) analyzed the submissions and found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had validly exercised discretion under Section 80, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness in the decision-making process. Consequently, the Member upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

The judgment also delved into the interpretation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, in the context of penalty waivers. The Revenue contended that the waiver of penalty is subject to the assessee proving a reasonable cause for non-payment of Service Tax. However, the Advocate referenced a case law to argue that the authority has discretionary powers to intervene in penalty impositions. The Member (Judicial) considered these arguments and concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately exercised discretion under Section 80 based on the circumstances presented in the case. The Member emphasized the lack of evidence showcasing arbitrariness in the decision-making process, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the upholding of the impugned order.

Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the waiver of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, focusing on the specific provisions of Sections 76, 77, 78, and 80. It highlighted the importance of proving a reasonable cause for non-payment of Service Tax under Section 80, while also emphasizing the discretionary powers of the authority to interfere with imposed penalties. The decision underscored the need for a valid exercise of discretion by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the absence of arbitrariness in such decisions to uphold penalty waivers in exceptional circumstances.