2008 (3) TMI 137 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal reinstates penalties, emphasizing leniency & lack of awareness.

Darmanian Enterprises Versus CCE, Jalandhar

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's revision orders and reinstated the original authority's penalties on the appellants for service tax liability. ... Appellants are appointed as distributors for the marketing of “spice post paid products” & receive commission for the same - As soon as the authorities informed them about the service tax liability, they immediately took out registration & paid the duty & interest – appellants are not much educate & they were not aware of the provisions of Service Tax laws - original authority has rightly taken a lenient view in terms of sec. 80, and imposed token penalty Issues:- Appellants' liability under Service Tax laws- Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act- Exercise of revision powers by the CommissionerAnalysis:1. Appellants' Liability under Service Tax Laws: The appellants, appointed as distributors for marketing 'spice post paid products,' received commissions for services rendered from February 2004 to February 2005. Upon communication from Central Excise authorities in February 2005 regarding service tax liability, the appellants registered themselves and paid the duty and interest promptly. The original authority acknowledged this and imposed nominal penalties under various sections of the Finance Act. The appellants, through their advocate, argued that being from a rural area and lacking education, they were unaware of the service tax laws and were not informed by M/s. Spice Telecom about the liability. They also highlighted that they had recovered only a part of the amount from Spice Telecom. Citing a relevant High Court decision, they sought to set aside the Commissioner's revision orders imposing enhanced penalties.2. Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76 and 78: The Commissioner, utilizing revision powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act, enhanced the penalties imposed on the appellants under Sections 76 and 78. The appellants contested this decision, emphasizing their lack of awareness and the leniency shown by the original authority. The Tribunal noted that no new grounds or evidence were presented to warrant a different conclusion from the original authority's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the original authority's leniency reasonable and set aside the Commissioner's orders, thereby restoring the original authority's penalties.3. Exercise of Revision Powers by the Commissioner: In this case, the Commissioner exercised revision powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act to enhance the penalties initially imposed on the appellants. However, the Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the revision orders, found no valid grounds or evidence to justify overturning the original authority's decision. The Tribunal concluded that the leniency shown by the original authority was appropriate under Section 80 of the Finance Act. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's revision orders and reinstated the original authority's penalties, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief.In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the appellants' liability under Service Tax laws, the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, and the exercise of revision powers by the Commissioner. The decision highlighted the importance of timely compliance, the original authority's discretion in penalty imposition, and the need for valid grounds to justify revisions in such cases.