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>Appeal successful as tribunal sets aside penalties under Finance Act. Service tax demand confirmed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. Versus CST Ahmedabad</h3> M/s. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. Versus CST Ahmedabad - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 206 (Tri. - Ahmd.) , [2011] 32 STT 75 (Ahd. - CESTAT), [2012] 47 VST 322 ... Issues:Classification of service under Construction Services category; Imposition of service tax, interest, and penalties; Appellant's contention of confusion regarding taxability; Applicability of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Classification of Service under Construction Services Category:The appellants were engaged in constructing high tension transmission lines using materials supplied by themselves or the owners. The Finance Act, 2004 introduced a new taxable category called Construction Services, which included erection involving civil works. The appellants clarified their activities, stating they fell under construction services as per the circular dated 17.09.2004. The Central Excise Department conducted investigations and concluded that the appellants' activities fell under Construction Services.Imposition of Service Tax, Interest, and Penalties:After a show cause notice, the department confirmed a demand for service tax with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants paid the service tax under protest. The advocate argued that there was confusion regarding the classification of services rendered, citing a lack of clarity from the department and a 2007 clarification by the CBEC. The advocate also referenced precedents to argue against the imposition of penalties.Appellant's Contention of Confusion Regarding Taxability:The appellants highlighted the confusion surrounding the taxability of their services during the relevant period. They explained their activities in detail to the department and promptly paid the service tax with interest upon the department's visit to their premises. The advocate emphasized the confusion prevailing in both the industry and the department, supported by a lack of clarity in past show cause notices and subsequent clarifications.Applicability of Penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:The tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. It acknowledged the confusion existing during the relevant period and the prompt payment of service tax by the appellants. The tribunal cited a lack of clear findings of suppression of facts or misdeclaration, leading to the conclusion that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were not justified. The tribunal set aside the penalties while confirming the demand for service tax with interest, as the appellants did not contest the same. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 