TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules service provider not liable for penalty under Finance Act due to valid explanation and section 80 provisions.</h1> <h3>Union of India through Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus Dial & Travel</h3> The Court held that no penalty should have been imposed on the service provider under sections 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The ... - Issues involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of penalty provisions under sections 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 in a case related to service-tax compliance by a traveling agent.Summary:Issue 1: Interpretation of penalty provisions under the Finance Act, 1994The application under s. 35H of the Central Excise Act challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Tribunal regarding the reduction of penalty under ss. 67 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent, a service provider, was issued a show-cause notice for penalty under s. 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with recovery of service-tax and interest. The respondent's explanation for delayed payment was considered by the adjudicating authority, leading to the imposition of a reduced penalty. The Tribunal further reduced the penalty to &8377; 5,000, prompting the petitioner to appeal against this decision.Issue 2: Application of s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994The respondent argued that s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, provides for the non-imposition of penalty in cases where there is a reasonable cause for the failure to pay service-tax on time. The respondent's explanation for the delay, including misappropriation by staff and misunderstanding of tax obligations, was deemed valid by the adjudicating authority. The failure to consider s. 80 by the authorities was highlighted, indicating that no penalty should have been levied based on the circumstances and the respondent's explanation.Conclusion:In light of the respondent's valid explanation for the delay in payment and the provisions of s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Court found that no penalty should have been imposed. The failure of both the assessee and the Revenue to notice s. 80 led to the imposition of a reduced penalty. The Court declined to refer the question raised by the Revenue for decision, emphasizing that the peculiar facts of the case warranted the absence of any penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
