TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air services”. The appellant/assessee being a proprietary concern immediately paid the entire liability of service tax along with interest and filed ST-3 returns, though belatedly. The appellants are not disputing their liability of service tax and have paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest which has also been appropriated in the adjudication order but are only before the Tribunal contesting the imposition of penalties - the entire proceedings were initiated based on the final audit report and the ST-3 returns and hence, do not find any element of suppression of facts mis-statement etc. with an intent to evade payment of service tax. The demand of Service Tax and interest is upheld and the penalties imposed u/s 78 and la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Finance Act 1994 on the amount demanded in (a) above; (d) A penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 on the amount demanded in (a) as discussed supra; (d) A penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax on 'erection and Commissioning Charges; received for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 as discussed supra; (f) Late fee of ₹ 82,200/- should not be demanded from the assessee under provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C(III) of Service Tax Rules, 1994" 2. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand of ₹ 2,98,587/- and since the same was paid by the assessee, also appropriated the same. Confirmed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd legal and accordingly cannot be sustained. Learned consultant also argued that once the service tax along with interest is paid, before issuance of show-cause notice, there is no scope for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Manipal County Vs CST Bangalore as reported in 2010 (17)STR 474, which was further affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as reported in 2014(36)STR J 188 (Karnataka). Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 78 amounting to ₹ 2,98,587/- for the period 2012-13, the learned consultant submits that the appellants paid the amount and filed ST-3 returns and the show-cause notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erve that the entire proceedings were initiated based on the final audit report and the ST-3 returns and hence, do not find any element of suppression of facts mis-statement etc. with an intent to evade payment of service tax. I find that the Board's Circular No. 137/167/2003-CX4 dated 03.10.2007 is very clear and categorical on this issue. The same is being reproduced. Payment of Service tax/interest/penalty-issuance of show-cause notice and conclusion of proceedings-clarifications C.B.E & C Letter F No. 137/167/2006-CX.4, dated 3-10-2007 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi "Sub: Issuance of SCNs for levy of penalty in the cases where service tax is paid suo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person to whom SCN is issued under sub-section (l) of section 73. Therefore, it is not merely a conclusion under sub-section (1), but conclusion of all proceeding against such person. Similar is the position in respect of sub-section (3) of section 73.
4. Accordingly, conclusion of proceeding in terms of sub-sections (1A) and (3) of section 73 implies conclusion of entire proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994."
3. In view of the above discussions, the demand of Service Tax and interest is upheld and the penalties imposed u/s 78 and late fine imposed under Rule 7C of the S.T. Rules, 1994 are set side and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|