2017 (1) TMI 500 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal Overturns Penalty, Citing Justifiable Reasons for Non-Compliance with Tax Laws

Serum Institute of India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – III

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal ... Imposition of penalty - Reverse charge mechanism - consideration for technical advices and consultancy services - service providers situated abroad - Held that: - the period involved in this case is from 18/04/2006 to 30/09/2006 during which period there was confusion as to whether service tax liability would arise on the person making the payment for the services received from overseas service providers - Since there was confusion and constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 66A was being challenged, we find that it is a fit case to hold that the appellant had justifiable reasons for not discharging service tax liability under reverse-charge mechanism - Invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty u/s 78 set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Discharge of service tax liability under reverse-charge mechanism, applicability of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, imposition of penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai challenged Order-in-Original No: P-I/ Commr/ST/04/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I, confirming demands, interest, and penalties on the appellant related to service tax liability. The issue revolved around the discharge of service tax liability by the appellant concerning payments made for technical advice and consultancy services to overseas service providers. The Revenue contended that Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, applied from 18/04/2006, necessitating the discharge of service tax liability under the reverse-charge mechanism.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that they had already discharged the service tax liability, interest, and penalties before the show cause notice was issued. The appellant had also taken CENVAT credit, as noted by the adjudicating authority. The appellant sought the setting aside of penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Departmental Representative supported the findings of the adjudicating authority.Upon review of the records, it was evident that the appellant had fulfilled the service tax liability, interest, and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that during the period in question (from 18/04/2006 to 30/09/2006), there was uncertainty regarding the service tax liability for payments to overseas service providers. The issue was resolved by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a specific case, indicating justifiable reasons for the appellant's non-compliance with the reverse-charge mechanism. Citing Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the applicability of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, which exempts the issuance of a show cause notice if the service tax liability and interest are discharged before such notice.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by overturning the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the justifiable reasons and legal provisions discussed during the proceedings.