Appeal denied for tax evasion by chartered accountant. Upheld penalties for non-payment and inclusion of amounts.

The appeal was rejected as the appellant, a chartered accountant, failed to pay service tax on reimbursement charges and services provided to call centers. The appellant's argument to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act was dismissed due to lack of evidence and delayed action despite being aware of tax provisions. Penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were upheld based on the appellant's failure to include certain amounts from customers and not paying tax on specific sums. The judgment was delivered on 8-11-2010 by Member (J) Archana Wadhwa.

---

---

Issues:
1. Service tax payment on reimbursement charges.
2. Service tax liability on services provided to call centers.
3. Invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act.
4. Justification for penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered service tax payer as practicing chartered accountants, did not pay service tax on Rs. 82,444 shown as "out of pocket expenses." The authorities confirmed the service tax, and the appellant sought to set aside the penalty without challenging the confirmation.

2. Another service tax amount of Rs. 7,695 was confirmed against the appellant for services provided to call centers, claimed as exempt during the relevant period. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's plea due to insufficient evidence justifying the claim, leading to the confirmation of the tax and interest.

3. The appellant argued for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, citing bona fide doubts regarding service tax payment. However, the Commissioner found the delay unjustified as the appellant was registered under the relevant category, indicating awareness of tax provisions. The lack of evidence showing attempts to clarify doubts and the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse led to the rejection of invoking Section 80.

4. The Commissioner justified the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78, stating that separate penalties under different provisions were appropriate, referencing a relevant case law. The appellant's failure to include certain amounts from customers for services and not paying tax on Rs. 24,970 without justification further negated the need for invoking Section 80.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected based on the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence, justifying the penalties imposed, and the lack of grounds for invoking Section 80. The judgment was pronounced on 8-11-2010 by Member (J) Archana Wadhwa.

---