2017 (8) TMI 67 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/s 78 - case of appellant is that the period involved is 2003-2007 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 30.10.2007. He argues that there was no wrong intention on the part of the appellant - extended period of limitation - Held that - the business auxiliary service was brought within purview of service tax on 01.07.2003. Despite that, the appellant did not take registration and did not file any statutory returns. The appellant kept on suppressing the value of services, which were provided by them. The detection was made by the department on the basis of documents produced by the service receiver. Such documents revealed the suppression of value of taxable services rendered during the impugned period to the tune of ₹ 23,59,962/. Hence, in the SCN, the provisions of extended period have been correctly invoked. As such, the SCN has been issued within the statutory limit prescribed by the Act. As there is clear suppression, the penalty u/s 78 ibid has been correctly imposed on the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant providing taxable services without registration and payment of service tax liability.
2. Appeal against the order of adjudicating authority.
3. Contesting penalty under Section 78.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellant.
5. Applicability of penalty provisions under the Finance Act 1994.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was engaged in providing business auxiliary services without proper registration or payment of service tax liability, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 78, and 77 of the Finance Act 1994.

2. The appellant appealed the order, resulting in a reworking of the service tax demand after deducting reimbursed expenses. The reduced penalty under Section 78 was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to further challenge the penalty.

3. The appellant contested only the penalty under Section 78, arguing that there was no wrongful intention and highlighting the period of the alleged violation from 2003-2007. The appellant requested leniency based on the reimbursement of part of the tax and cited a relevant case law.

4. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to register or pay service tax, suppressing facts detected by the department based on documents from the service receiver. The Revenue emphasized the appellant's non-compliance with tax obligations.

5. The Tribunal found that despite the service falling under the service tax purview since 2003, the appellant did not register or file returns, suppressing the value of taxable services provided. The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 78 due to clear suppression and correctly invoked the extended period for issuing the show cause notice.

6. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case cited by the appellant, highlighting the difference in circumstances and emphasizing the finding of suppression in the present case. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty under Section 78.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision to uphold the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994.