9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Finance Act"), is directed against the order dated 17.03.2015, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (for brevity "the Tribunal") in Final Order No.40447 of 2015. 2.The assessee has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994?" 3.The assessee is engaged in the business of construction of commercial and residential complexes and registered w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial complexes after 16.06.2005, they had not collected/realised any amount from their clients separately towards service tax. 5.With regard to the allegation of non-payment of service tax that had fallen due with effect from 16.06.2005, they had stated two reasons. Firstly, the assessee was under the impression that service tax liability would arise only after completion of the services, that is, after completion of the construction activity. Secondly, due to lack of awareness regarding the effect of the legal provisions, which were brought into effect for the first time from 13.05.2005 by which, advances received before, during and after providing of services, were also subjected to payment of service tax. 6.Further, it was reiterated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the, but confirmed the penalty levied under Section 78 and while doing so, has not given any independent reason as to why he chose not to interfere with that portion of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and sustaining the penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 8.The assessee, being aggrieved over such order, filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after extensively referring to the grounds raised by the assessee, dismissed the appeal. The assessee collected service tax amount on the taxable service rendered by them and also suppressed the fact in their half yearly return filed for the period up to September, 2005 and they also filed Nil return for the said period mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage. There were several interpretations to the new law and uncertainty loomed even with the Department. This submission made by the assessee was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. In fact, the assessee stated that as soon as the Department had advised them, they had remitted the entire amount along with interest. This was much prior to the issuance of show cause notice. 11.The Revenue may argue that this is not a mitigating circumstance to desist from levying penalty, however, the Court has to take a broader perspective in the matter because, it is a new branch of Taxation Law introduced in the country for the first time and several services were being included periodically. Much thereafter, the entire structure of the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
