2015 (1) TMI 996 - HC - Service Tax

Reduction in quantum of penalty - Held that - Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal, in our view has rightly not inter fered with the possible view which was taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no perversity in the approach of the Tribunal or, for that matter, in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), reducing the penalty in the considered exercise of his jurisdiction. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a Service Tax case.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Determination of substantial question of law.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the reduction of penalty in a Service Tax case by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner reduced the penalty under sections 75 and 76, considering the nature of the appellant as an autonomous society under the Department of Information Technology. The Commissioner noted that during the initial stages of bringing a new service under the Service Tax net, doubts may arise regarding the applicability of Service Tax. The Commissioner found no evidence of intention to evade tax through fraud or collusion. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 31,37,505 to Rs. 2,00,000 under section 75 and from Rs. 200 per day to Rs. 100 per day under section 76. The Commissioner's decision was based on the principle of justice and lack of evidence against the appellant.

2. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the penalty, stating that there was no perversity in the approach taken. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising from the Commissioner's order. It affirmed the Commissioner's jurisdiction in reducing the penalty and concluded that the Tribunal did not need to interfere with the decision. Therefore, the Tribunal supported the reduction of penalty as a valid exercise of authority.

3. The High Court, comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J., and Dilip Gupta, J., upheld the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no substantial question of law arose from the case. As a result, there was no need for further legal intervention, and the appeal was rejected without any costs being awarded. The High Court's judgment affirmed the lower authorities' decisions regarding the reduction of penalty in the Service Tax matter, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion.