2015 (11) TMI 334 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty - Activity of supply of temporary labourers to various service recipients - ST3 return not filed - Held that - Appellant has accepted and admitted that they are liable to discharge the Service Tax liability and interest thereon. They were contesting before the first appellate authority only on the quantum cum tax benefit and also extended period cannot be invoked in some demands. We find that first appellate authority has addressed all the arguments raised by the appellant and reduced the tax liability, in accordance with the law. In our considered view, the appellant having admitted the tax liability and also that all the reliefs which were claimed before the first appellate authority were extended, has not made any case for setting aside penalties. - impugned order is a well reasoned order; considered the entire facts of the case in its correct perspective. We do not find any reason to interfere in such a reasoned order. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/AV/39/2011 dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II.
- Contesting show-cause notice on merits and limitation.
- Re-working of Service Tax liability by the first appellate authority.
- Reduction of tax liability, interest, and penalties.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai was directed against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. The appellant, engaged in supplying temporary laborers, had registered under "Manpower Recruitment Agency Services" but failed to file ST-3 returns. A show-cause notice was issued for short payment of duty, demanding &8377; 36,15,934/- with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, which were contested on merits and limitation. The first appellate authority re-evaluated the Service Tax liability based on gross taxable value, reducing the liability to &8377; 16,25,417/-, along with adjusted penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had acknowledged their liability for the Service Tax and interest. The appellant's contentions before the first appellate authority primarily focused on the quantum of tax liability and the applicability of the extended period for certain demands. The first appellate authority duly considered all arguments and granted reliefs, resulting in a reduction of tax liability in compliance with the law. As the appellant had admitted the tax liability and received the reliefs sought, the Tribunal found no grounds for setting aside the imposed penalties.

The Tribunal deemed the impugned order as well-reasoned, having considered all facts of the case accurately. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for intervening in the reasoned order. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal, affirming the decision of the first appellate authority regarding the reworked tax liability, interest, and penalties.