2016 (8) TMI 894 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of original order - Imposition of penalty security services - valuation benefit under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - bonafide belief Held that - during the relevant period the issue as to whether the value of the security services would include the salary, PF etc. of the security personnel was the subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal and the interpretations was not free from doubt. Tribunal s decision in all such types of matters has extended the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act 94 to the assessee. No penalty imposed as bonafide belief and benefit under section 80 availed impugned order set aside original order restored decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in service tax payment for one client.
2. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Act for waiving penalties.
3. Review of penalty imposition by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided security agent services to various clients but had a discrepancy in discharging service tax liability for one client based on the commission received rather than the full value of services. This led to investigations and subsequent deposit of the differential demand of service tax. The Additional Commissioner, considering the circumstances, dropped penal proceedings under Section 80 of the Act, citing reasonable cause for the discrepancy.

2. Section 80 of the Act allows waiving penalties if the assessee proves reasonable cause for the failure. The Additional Commissioner emphasized that a reasonable cause is an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds, as per the Woodward Governors India case. The Commissioner, however, reversed the decision, imposing penalties under Sections 78 and 77. The Tribunal noted that the issue of including salary, PF, etc., in the value of security services was ambiguous, and previous decisions extended the benefit of Section 80 to the assessee in such cases.

3. Citing relevant Tribunal decisions, including National Security Force vs. CCE Vadodara, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a reasonable cause for the discrepancy in service tax payment. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the original order of the adjudicating authority regarding the penalty, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting statutory provisions, proving reasonable cause for discrepancies, and the application of Section 80 of the Act in waiving penalties for honest and law-abiding taxpayers facing ambiguous tax issues.