2012 (5) TMI 510 - AT - Service Tax

Reduction of penalty - appellant provided taxable service of maintenance, repair and expenses. Expenses reimbursed was held to be taxable - taxability of the transaction - assessee has discharged tax liability before adjudication - appeals are disposed of remanding the matter to the original authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of penalty by first appellate authority challenged by Revenue.
2. Penalty imposed and levy of tax challenged by the Assessee.
3. Imposition of composite penalty under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Absence of the Assessee during the proceedings.
5. Consideration of reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Reduction of Penalty by First Appellate Authority:
The Revenue challenged the reduction of penalty by the first appellate authority to Rs. 25,000. The original authority confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 83,629 along with penalties under Sections 75, 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The first appellate authority reduced the penalty considering the absence of willful intention to evade tax. However, the Tribunal found that the conclusion of the first appellate authority was contrary to law as each contravention should attract a separate penalty under the relevant statutory provisions. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a fair hearing on the leviability of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 independently.

Imposition of Composite Penalty:
The original authority imposed a composite penalty of Rs. 84,896 invoking Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, despite the contravention of law under each section being different. The Tribunal held that a composite penalty was not permissible as each contravention should attract a separate penalty. The authorities failed to consider any reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and erred in imposing and subsequently reducing the penalty. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the penalties.

Absence of the Assessee:
The Assessee remained absent throughout the proceedings, leading to concerns about abusing the legal process. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence or defense presented by the Assessee, which resulted in the confirmation of the tax demand. Despite the absence, the Tribunal reviewed the grievance of the Assessee before the lower authorities and remanded the matter for a fair hearing.

Consideration of Reasonable Cause:
The Tribunal highlighted the failure of the authorities to consider any reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which could have impacted the penalty imposition. The absence of such consideration and the lack of evidence regarding any reasonable cause led to the decision to remand the matter for proper evaluation and a reasoned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals by remanding the matter to the original authority for a fair hearing on the leviability of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 independently. The judgment emphasized the importance of separate penalties for different contraventions and the necessity of considering any reasonable cause that could affect penalty imposition.