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>Service Tax Rate Determination Based on Service Period, Not Payment Date</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Versus CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (I) PVT LTD</h3> COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Versus CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (I) PVT LTD - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 561 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Rate of service tax applicable on services rendered prior to 14/5/03 with payment received on or after 14/5/06.2. Penalty under Section 76 for delayed payment of service tax.Analysis:Issue 1: Rate of Service Tax ApplicableThe Tribunal examined whether the rate of service tax on services provided before 14/5/03, with payment received on or after 14/5/06, should be charged at the rate in force during the service period or the payment receipt date. Citing precedents like Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, the Tribunal held that the applicable rate is determined by the service period, not the payment date. Therefore, the rate in force during the service period (5% adv.) applied in this case, upholding the Commissioner's decision.Issue 2: Penalty under Section 76Regarding the penalty under Section 76 for delayed service tax payment, the Commissioner invoked Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Circular No.137/176/2006-CX-4 to waive the penalty. The Commissioner noted that the respondent accurately declared taxable service values and acknowledged the shortfall in service tax payment. The delay was attributed to financial difficulties, not intentional evasion. The Tribunal agreed that there was no fraudulent intent or misstatement by the respondent. The delayed payments were made with interest, reflecting a willingness to rectify the lapses. Since the service tax liability was acknowledged and interest was paid, the Tribunal found no basis for imposing a penalty under Section 76. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on both issues, affirming the rate of service tax based on the service period and dismissing the penalty under Section 76 due to the absence of fraudulent intent or misstatement by the respondent.
TaxTMI 