2008 (10) TMI 88 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Finance Act Penalties, Reduces Amount for Tax Non-Deposit

Remac Marketing (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata

The Tribunal upheld penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing appellant's failure to deposit tax and hindrance to revenue ... Default in making deposit of the tax collected and also the tax due - suppression of fact which prevented revenue to realize its dues - imposition of penalty under sections 76 and 78 - appellant pleaded that there shall not be double penalty both under sections 76 and 77 - appellant has already deposited the service tax demanded before issuance of SCN - conscious disregard to law was made by appellant – hence, penalty is imposable but it is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh to meet end of justice Issues:1. Imposition of service tax demand with interest and penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Applicability of penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Act.3. Consideration of penalty waiver due to deposit of entire tax before show-cause notice.4. Evaluation of penalty imposition under section 76 of the Act.5. Assessment of appellant's defiant attitude and breach of statutory obligations.6. Application of penalty reduction based on gravity of the case and relevant legal principles.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the service tax demand, interest, and penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority upheld the penalties citing the appellant's failure to deposit the collected tax, suppression of facts, and hindrance to revenue collection. The appellant argued for penalty exoneration based on previous judgments and full tax deposit before the show-cause notice.2. The Departmental Representative opposed penalty waiver, emphasizing the need to uphold penalties to deter violations. The Tribunal decided to dispense pre-deposit and addressed the penalty under section 78, noting the principle against double penalties. Consequently, the penalty under section 78 was waived.3. The focus then shifted to the penalty under section 76 of the Act. The appellant's arguments lacked justification for not depositing the tax and failed to provide reasonable cause for immunity from penalties. The Tribunal found the appellant's actions to be in conscious disregard of the law, justifying the imposition of penalties for the breach.4. The Tribunal considered the gravity of the appellant's defiant attitude and conscious violation of statutory obligations. Drawing from legal precedents, including the Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that penalties should be imposed judiciously, especially in quasi-criminal proceedings. The Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 1 lakh to align with the principles of justice and proportionality.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's partial success in the appeal, highlighting the need to penalize the appellant appropriately to prevent future breaches of the law. The decision aimed to strike a balance between enforcing compliance and ensuring fairness in penalty imposition based on the circumstances of the case.