2015 (10) TMI 2097 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal ruling on service tax levy and penalties under Finance Act, 1994

C.C.E., Ludhiana Versus M/s. Sharma Trading Co.

The appeal focused on the imposition of service tax levy on Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) provided and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the ... Imposition of Penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 – Revenue contends that ld. Appellate Commissioner erred in dropping penalty under Section 76 – Held That:- There is discretion in the adjudicating to eschew levy of penalty under Section 76 where penalty under Section 78 is imposed – Decided against the Revenue. Issues: Service tax levy on Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) provided, imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Service Tax Levy on BAS Provided:Proceedings were initiated against the respondent for providing taxable BAS by promoting the sale of goods for a specific company, allegedly receiving a consideration of &8377; 46,40,000. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand of &8377; 4,73,280 along with interest and penalties. The appeal by the assessee was allowed partially by the ld. Commissioner, who confirmed the service tax demand to the extent of &8377; 3,51,723 along with penalties under Sections 77 and 78. The only issue in this appeal was the dropping of penalty under Section 76 of the Act by the ld. Appellate Commissioner.Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78:The Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling in C.C.E. Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd. stated that during the relevant period, penalties under Sections 76 and 78 could be imposed, but there was discretion to eschew the levy of penalty under Section 76 when penalty under Section 78 is imposed. In this case, the Revenue contended that the dropping of penalty under Section 76 by the ld. Appellate Commissioner was erroneous. However, following the law declared by the High Court, the appeal by Revenue was found to have no merits and was dismissed.This judgment primarily dealt with the imposition of service tax levy on Business Auxiliary Service provided and the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the application of precedents, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal due to the discretion provided to the adjudicating authority in imposing penalties under the Act.