2009 (7) TMI 1074 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues: Liability for penal provisions under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; Applicability of Section 80 in the case; Decision on the appeal based on time bar.

Liability for Penal Provisions: The case involved a dispute regarding the liability for penal provisions under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had paid Service Tax before the issuance of Show Cause Notice but had not discharged the Service Tax liability for a specific period. The appellant argued that they were instructed by their Principal not to pay the Service Tax as it was under dispute. The Tribunal noted the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, citing the confirmation of delivery of a document to the appellant. However, upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found doubts regarding the service of the Order-In-Original (OIO) to the appellant. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal concluded that the issue favored the appellant due to uncertainty about the OIO's service. As the appeal was found to be within the time limit, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration on merits.

Applicability of Section 80: The appellant claimed protection under Section 80, arguing they were advised by their Principal not to pay the Service Tax due to a dispute. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the issue on merits but solely on the question of time bar. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and remanded the case for a fresh decision based on the merits of the case.

Decision on Time Bar: The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal as time-barred, based on the confirmation of document delivery to the appellant. However, the Tribunal, after examining the evidence, raised doubts about the actual service of the OIO to the appellant. Citing a relevant legal precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was within the time limit, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh consideration on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of the case on its substance rather than solely on procedural grounds.