2017 (11) TMI 832 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - Non-payment of part of service tax - appellant case is that there was no suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty - Held that - the appellant have failed to pay the service tax during the relevant period but there was no suppression on his part because he has shown the liability of service tax in his balance sheet which has been produced on record - Further, as soon as it was pointed out by the audit, he paid the service tax immediately and thereafter interest was also paid before the adjudication by the first authority - there is no material on record to show the intention to evade payment of tax on the part of the appellant - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders rejecting appeals but setting aside penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, subject to payment of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. Identical Appeals Disposal:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed against orders dated 21.3.2016 and 28.7.2016 by the Commissioner (A) rejecting the appeals but setting aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, subject to payment of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the issues in both appeals were identical, they were disposed of together.

2. Facts of the Case:
The appellant, a partnership firm providing services as a 'C & F Agent,' had not correctly paid service tax for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. After being notified by officers, they paid the service tax but faced a show-cause notice demanding interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The lower authority imposed penalties, which the appellant contested before the Commissioner (A).

3. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade service tax as the liability was reflected in their balance sheet submitted to tax departments. They contended that payment delays were due to financial difficulties, and they promptly paid taxes and interest upon notification. The appellant cited relevant legal precedents to support their case.

4. Respondent's Arguments:
The respondent argued that penalties were rightly imposed due to non-disclosure and suppression of facts by the appellant. They relied on legal decisions to support their stance.

5. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
After reviewing submissions and records, the judicial member found no suppression or intention to evade tax by the appellant. The appellant had shown the liability in their balance sheet, paid taxes promptly upon notification, and cleared interest before adjudication. Citing relevant legal precedents, the judicial member concluded that the appellant was entitled to benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to valid reasons for delayed tax payments. Consequently, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable in law, and the appeals of the appellant were allowed, setting aside the penalties.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, judicial analysis, and the final decision delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.