2025 (3) TMI 197 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty - whether penalty has been properly imposed or the matter should have been remanded on this aspect also for penalty under Section 78 required to be imposed? - HELD THAT - The period involved in this case is January- 2014 to March-2015. It is found that the order setting aside penalty under Section 78 imposed penalty under Section 76 and remanded matter on various points. Same has been correctly passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).The fact is also noted that there was an earlier show cause notice issued to the party and that was done after thorough scrutiny of its functioning. Therefore the matter was well within the knowledge of the department. Any provision relating to non-filing of return or not paying tax dues does not bring the concept of intent to evade payment of Tax as the same could be outcome of contentious issues on taxability at times. As found by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) only quantum of service tax was disputed and not the liability itself. In view of various payments made by the appellant as mentioned above the order taking note has set aside the penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act 1994. Conclusion - There is no error in the impugned order which set aside penalty under Section 78. Even otherwise imposition of simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 is debatable in various High Courts. Appeal of the department is therefore liable to be rejected.

Summary

The case involves an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerning the imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The core legal questions considered in this judgment are whether penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 should be imposed, the criteria for imposing these penalties, and the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.The Appellate Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal filed by the department challenging the non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department argued that penalty under Section 78 should have been imposed due to the respondent's failure to pay service tax despite the show cause notice and the intention to evade tax. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) justified the non-imposition of penalty under Section 78 by stating that the respondent had paid the service tax liabilities and interest before the issuance of the impugned order, indicating no malicious intent to evade tax.In its analysis, the Tribunal highlighted that the period under consideration was January 2014 to March 2015. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty under Section 78, imposed penalty under Section 76, and remanded the matter on certain points. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the department was aware of the appellant's activities due to a prior show cause notice. It was observed that the disputed issue was the quantum of service tax, not the liability itself. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions did not demonstrate an intent to evade tax, especially considering the payments made towards the tax liabilities.The Tribunal also addressed the issue of imposing simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and Section 78, noting that such imposition is debatable in various High Courts. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalty under Section 78 and uphold the penalty under Section 76.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to not impose penalty under Section 78, considering the appellant's compliance with tax payments and lack of evidence of intentional tax evasion. The Tribunal also highlighted the debatable nature of imposing simultaneous penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, ultimately rejecting the department's appeal.