Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (1) TMI 978 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of service tax and penalty imposition.
2. Reduction of penalty amount.
3. Applicability of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act.
4. Benefit of reduced penalty and its entitlement.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confirmation of a demand of service tax against the appellants, who were engaged in taxable activities but had not paid the requisite duty. The demand was proposed in a show cause notice (SCN) and confirmed in subsequent orders. The appellant challenged the penalty imposed along with the interest, seeking a reduction in the penalty amount.

2. The appellant argued that the duty liability was not disputed, but the penalty amount was contested. The original adjudicating authority did not mention the benefit of reduced penalty, which was reduced to 50% by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant sought a further reduction to 25% of the recoverable service tax, citing relevant case laws and a CBEC Circular to support their appeal.

3. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, which states that a person liable to pay tax shall also pay a penalty if the tax is not paid. The penalty rates are specified in Sections 76-78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 11AC allows for a reduction in penalty to nil if the tax is paid before the issuance of the SCN, and to 25% if paid within 30 days of the SCN.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not fall under the circumstances for reduced penalty as per Section 11AC. Despite arguments for a reasonable cause for not paying the penalty within 30 days, the provisions did not allow for discretion in other cases. The case laws cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable, as the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty due to the delayed payment. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the order reducing the penalty to 50% and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reduce the penalty to 50% and found no infirmity in the order. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates