2017 (10) TMI 1053 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds service tax, waives penalties in exemption case

The Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax but set aside penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 in a case concerning the interpretation of ... GTA Service - N/N. 34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 - whether the goods transported by the GTA, exclusively for the appellant, would fall within the meaning of “individual consignment” or “consignments”? - Held that: - the issue stands settled in favour of the Revenue by the judgment reported in the case of Subramania Siva Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that where the transportation is for a single consignee, the transaction will fall under the second clause - demand upheld. Penalty u/s 76 and 78 - Held that: - the issue being interpretational one and having travelled upto the Hon’ble High Court, we find that the appellant has put forward reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax. Thus, invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the penalties imposed u/s 76 and 78 are unwarranted. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:Interpretation of exemption Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 regarding transportation of goods by road under clauses (i) and (ii), imposition of penalties under sections 76 and 78 for non-payment of service tax.Analysis:1. The primary issue in the appeals was to determine whether the appellant falls under clause (i) or clause (ii) of the exemption Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004. The dispute revolved around whether the goods transported by the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) exclusively for the appellant should be considered an 'individual consignment' or 'consignments.' The appellant argued for exemption under clause (i) as the GTA exclusively transported for them, while the Revenue contended that the transaction falls under clause (ii) as the GTA transported for a single consignee. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand for service tax and imposed penalties under sections 76 and 78.2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel acknowledged a judgment by the Hon'ble Madras High Court favoring the Revenue in a similar case. The counsel requested the penalties to be set aside, citing a genuine belief that the services were not taxable under the exemption Notification. It was argued that as an interpretational issue, penalties should be waived, especially since the appellant had disclosed the transactions in their returns and there was no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation.3. The Revenue reiterated its stance from the impugned order during the hearing.4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled in favor of the Revenue based on the precedent set by the judgment in a previous case. Despite upholding the demand for service tax, the Tribunal found that the penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 were not justified. Considering the interpretational nature of the issue and the appellant's reasonable cause for non-payment, the Tribunal invoked section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to waive the penalties.5. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to set aside the penalties imposed under sections 76 and 78 without altering the confirmation of the demand for service tax or the related interest. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the exemption Notification and the appellant's genuine belief regarding the tax liability of the services provided by the GTA.