TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decision Upheld in Favor of Assessee: Waiver of Penalties Justified</h1> <h3>Commissioner Central Excise, Jaipur-I Versus Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd</h3> Commissioner Central Excise, Jaipur-I Versus Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd - 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 661 (Raj.) , [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 257 (Raj) Issues Involved:1. Whether the relief from penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, prevents the invocation of the extended period of limitation for confirming service tax demand.2. Whether the ingredients required for invoking Section 80 are the same as those required for the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Relief from Penalties under Section 80 and Extended Period of Limitation:The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority invoked Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to waive penalties, acknowledging the bona fide belief of the appellant that they were not liable to service tax. The Tribunal noted that the appellant, a state government undertaking, had already deposited Rs. 68 lakh voluntarily and that the evasion of service tax would not benefit any private entity. This justified the waiver of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including Sankhla Udyog Vs. CCEST, Jaipur and BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, to support that the extended period of limitation would not be invocable when penalties are waived due to bona fide belief.2. Ingredients of Section 80 and Extended Period of Limitation:The Tribunal held that the ingredients required for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, are the same as those required for invoking Section 80. The Tribunal cited the case of CCE, Allahabad Vs. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd., emphasizing that a public sector undertaking cannot be accused of willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate contravention of rules with the intent to evade duty payment.Original Order and Conduct of the Respondent:The appellant contended that the respondent failed to disclose complete information, did not take registration, did not pay service tax, and did not file returns, which was only discovered through departmental investigation. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,63,29,092/- based on the deliberate act of suppression of information. However, the authority also acknowledged the bona fide belief of the respondent and waived the penalties under Section 80, considering the state government undertaking status and voluntary deposit of Rs. 68 lakh.Relevant Case Laws:The appellant relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Padmini Products vs. Collector of C. Ex., and Continental Foundation JT. Venture vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., to argue that the extended period of limitation requires proof of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement with the intent to evade duty. The Tribunal found that in the present case, there was no evidence of such intent, and the bona fide belief of the respondent justified the waiver of penalties under Section 80.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the consistent practice of accepting decisions not challenged by the department should be followed. The issues were answered in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 