2017 (1) TMI 718 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant liable for interest, penalties set aside due to procedural changes.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telephone Revenue Unit) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin

The Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay interest for delayed service tax payment but set aside penalties imposed by the Commissioner, citing ... Delay in payment of tax - change in procedure of payment of tax - imposition of interest and penalty - the appellant paid the amount as per the procedure adopted by them as mentioned in their letter dated 04.04.2001, and not as per the procedure which were required to be followed - Held that: - in the case of CCE Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd.[2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], Honble Supreme Court has held that delay in payment of duty for whatever reasons, attracts interest - the appellant is liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Further as far as penalty is concerned, we find that the Department has not been able to establish that there was a malafide intention of the appellant for evasion of tax and for late payment of tax. The delay has occurred because of change in the procedure of payment of tax and therefore we do not find any justification for imposing penalty - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues:- Delay in payment of service tax- Imposition of interest and penalties- Compliance with service tax regulationsAnalysis:Issue 1: Delay in payment of service taxThe appellant, a PSU providing Telephone Services, failed to comply with the requirement of law by not registering as a service provider under the category of Telephone Service and not paying service tax amounting to a significant sum due for the period from 01.10.2000 to 31.03.2002 through TR-6 Challans as mandated by the Finance Act 1994. Despite receiving instructions from the Department of Telecommunications to remit the service tax to the DOT cell, delays occurred in remitting the tax to the Government, leading to violations of Sections 69, 68, and 70 of the Finance Act 1994. The Commissioner imposed interest and penalties for these delays.Issue 2: Imposition of interest and penaltiesThe Commissioner, in the impugned order, withdrew the demand for service tax but confirmed the demand for interest and imposed various penalties. The interest amount of &8377; 42,86,681/- was calculated for the belated tax payment under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994. Additionally, penalties of &8377; 500/- under Section 75A, &8377; 1,000/- under Section 77, and &8377; 14,900/- under Section 76 were imposed for different violations related to registration, filing returns, and delayed tax payments. The appellant challenged these penalties in the appeal.Issue 3: Compliance with service tax regulationsThe appellant argued that the delays in payment were due to procedural changes instructed by the DOT and were not intentional. They cited previous decisions to support their claim that the delays were beyond their control. On the other hand, the AR defended the impugned order, stating that delays in tax payment automatically trigger interest charges. The Commissioner noted the delays in remitting tax to the Government, emphasizing that even though the tax was eventually paid, the delays violated the provisions of the Finance Act 1994.In the final judgment, the Tribunal found the appellant liable to pay interest for the delayed period but set aside the penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that the delays were due to procedural changes rather than malafide intentions, leading to the decision to partially allow the appeal and provide consequential relief.