2015 (9) TMI 419 - HC - Service Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 78 - corresponding modification (upward) in penalty due to final computation of service tax liability - benefit of reduced penalty of 25% - Held that - Commissioner proceeds to recompute and recalculate the tax liability and penalty. The penalty that he has computed is based on evasion and consistent therewith. However, he has not ignored the proviso to Section 78 and in computing the benefit thereunder that he refers to the figures in a table, copy of which is found at page 153 of the Appeal paper book. Hence, if the Assessee is required to pay the balance of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 3,62,80,398/- and appropriate interest under Section 75 on the total amount confirmed under this order less the amount already paid and the differential penalty under Section 78 which is 25% of the Service Tax demand confirmed, less 25% of the Service Tax demand confirmed under the earlier order and already paid, then, the Assessee would get the benefit of reduced penalty. It is this computation which has been reflected in the operative order in para 14. That order has been complied with by the Assessee and as certified by the Commissioner at page 162 of the Appeal paper book. 25% of the amount of penalty as redetermined and recomputed, if deposited, the benefit would be available. In such circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal intended to impose any outer limit or cap on the penalty. The understanding of the Revenue that the outer limit of ₹ 10 crores is imposed in the impugned order on the quantum of penalty is therefore not correct and has no basis - appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty provisions under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Calculation and imposition of penalty for evasion of Service Tax.
3. Compliance with directions for recalculation and recomputation of tax liability and penalty.

Interpretation of penalty provisions under the Finance Act, 1994:
The case involved a dispute over the penalty imposed on an Assessee for alleged evasion of Service Tax. The Commissioner of Service Tax had confirmed a demand for Service Tax, leading to a reevaluation of the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assessee argued that the penalty should be restricted based on the Act's provisions, particularly the second proviso to Section 78, which limited the penalty to 25% of the total tax if paid within the specified time. The Assessee contended that the penalty had been appropriately paid, rendering the Appeal academic. The court examined the Commissioner's order and the applicable provisions, concluding that the penalty computation was correct and in compliance with the Act. The court dismissed the Appeal, finding no substantial question of law raised on this issue.

Calculation and imposition of penalty for evasion of Service Tax:
The Commissioner, after confirming the Service Tax demand against the Assessee for evasion, reevaluated the penalty under Section 78. The Commissioner considered the gravity of the offense, the deliberate evasion of Service Tax by the Assessee, and proposed a penalty of Rs. 13 crores. The penalty calculation was based on the amount sought to be evaded, ranging from the tax demanded to double that amount. The court noted that the penalty computation was consistent with the Act's provisions and the Assessee's compliance with the reduced penalty benefit. The court upheld the Commissioner's penalty imposition and found no error in the calculation, dismissing the Appeal on this ground.

Compliance with directions for recalculation and recomputation of tax liability and penalty:
The Tribunal's order was scrutinized to determine if it directed compliance with the recalculation and recomputation of tax liability and penalty, as well as the application of the reduced penalty benefit under the Act. The court clarified that the Tribunal did not intend to impose an outer limit on the penalty, contrary to the Revenue's interpretation. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's order should be read as directing compliance with the recalculation, recomputation, and the benefit of the reduced penalty as per the Act's provisions. The court found no merit in the Appeal, dismissing it for lack of substantial legal questions and denying any cap on the penalty amount.