2013 (7) TMI 267 - AT - Service Tax

Security services penalty suppression - no response from the department against the registration application in ST-1 form - Commissioner (Appeals) though upheld the liability of service tax, but set aside the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Held that - as soon as it the situation made clear on part of the assessee he paid the service tax and also discharged the Interest - there was no suppression of facts or misstatement - the entire amount of taxable value collected were duly accounted for in their books of accounts and also in the Income Tax Returns No penalty - decided against the revenue.

Issues involved:
1. Liability of service tax on security services provided by an ex-serviceman.
2. Registration application submission and response from the Department.
3. Discharge of service tax liability and penalty imposition.
4. Appeal against penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. Dispute over facts suppression and intent to evade service tax payment.
6. Verification of ST-1 Form submission and response from the Department.
7. Commissioner (Appeals) decision on penalty imposition and service tax liability.

1. Liability of service tax on security services provided by an ex-serviceman:
The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of service tax on security services provided by an ex-serviceman from April 2003 to September 2008. The Respondent, engaged in providing security services, faced a demand notice for service tax amounting to Rs. 3,49,047.00. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax liability but set aside the penalty. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

2. Registration application submission and response from the Department:
The Respondent had applied for registration of the security services on 05.04.2005 but did not receive a response from the Department. The Appellant contended that they had duly submitted the ST-1 Form to the concerned Inspector of Central Excise, which was received on the mentioned date. The Department did not dispute the receipt of the form. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the submission of the application but did not clarify if registration was issued at that time.

3. Discharge of service tax liability and penalty imposition:
The Respondent, upon realizing the service tax liability, paid the entire amount along with interest, as confirmed by the Field Formation through various letters. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) considering the circumstances of the case.

4. Appeal against penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The Revenue appealed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant argued that the Respondent had not disclosed the services rendered and failed to discharge the service tax in a timely manner.

5. Dispute over facts suppression and intent to evade service tax payment:
The Respondent, represented by a Chartered Accountant, claimed that there was no intent to evade service tax payment as all taxable amounts were duly accounted for in their books and income tax returns. The Appellant argued that the Respondent did not disclose the services rendered and failed to discharge the service tax on time.

6. Verification of ST-1 Form submission and response from the Department:
The issue of whether the ST-1 Form submitted by the Respondent was acknowledged by the Department was crucial in determining the liability of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the submission of the form but did not clarify if registration was granted at that time.

7. Commissioner (Appeals) decision on penalty imposition and service tax liability:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax liability but set aside the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the facts presented, including the submission of the ST-1 Form and the subsequent payment of the service tax amount.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the findings regarding the service tax liability and penalty imposition in the case.

← Previous Next →