2016 (6) TMI 1105 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Upheld Service Tax Demand, Set Aside Penalties, and Directed Department Compliance

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi upheld the confirmation of service tax demand within the normal period, set aside penalties, and extended the ... Implementation of final order of the tribunal - cargo handling service - In the order, Tribunal has upheld the adjudication order to the extent of confirmation of the service tax demand alongwith interest made within the normal period of limitation and has also set aside the penalty imposed in the adjudication order in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Held that:- There are no documents available on records to show that the operation of Final order dated 08/12/2011 [2011 (12) TMI 205 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] of this Tribunal has either been stayed or overruled by any higher Courts. Therefore, the Department is duty bound to implement the order of the Tribunal. As such, in terms of Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, we direct the Original Authority to implement the Final Order dated 08/12/2011 of this Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Issues involved:Implementation of final order, confirmation of service tax demand, setting aside of penalty, extension of benefit of cum-tax value, computation of service tax demand within normal period, duty of the Department to implement the Tribunal's order.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi received a miscellaneous application for the implementation of a final order passed in appeal No. ST/328 of 2008. The Tribunal had previously recorded findings related to the case, stating that there was no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty due to confusion in the law at that time. Consequently, only the demand for tax for the normal period and interest for the tax short paid were upheld, and all penalties were waived as per the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, the Tribunal extended the benefit of cum-tax value to the appellants based on previous decisions. The Tribunal's order upheld the confirmation of the service tax demand within the normal period, set aside the penalty, and extended the benefit of cum-tax value.Upon reviewing the order, it was found that the entire adjudged amount of service tax had been deposited by the appellant during the appeal process. However, the computation of the service tax demand within the normal period, considering the benefit of cum-tax value, had not been done by the original authority despite the Tribunal's order. There was no evidence to suggest that the operation of the Tribunal's final order had been stayed or overruled by higher courts. Therefore, the Department was directed to implement the Tribunal's final order within three months as per Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.This judgment highlights the importance of implementing tribunal orders, the considerations for tax demands and penalties, and the extension of benefits based on legal precedents. It emphasizes the duty of the Department to comply with tribunal decisions and ensure proper computation of tax demands within specified periods, as outlined in the procedural rules.