2019 (1) TMI 620 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal remands case for interest quantification, sets aside penalty, rules in favor of appellant.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for quantification of interest, as the appellant filed the appeal within a ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - date of receipt of the letter from the Superintendent is dated 6.12.2016 the appeal was filed on 23.2.2017 - Time Limitation - Held that:- The impugned order dismissing the appeal on time bar is not sustainable in law because the appeal was filed within 76 days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 6.12.2016, which is within condonable period of 30 days and therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A). Further, the letter dated 6.12.2016 demanding interest for the delayed payment of service tax to the tune of ₹ 37,76,801/- is without any proper quantification given in the said letter - case remanded back to the original authority to quantify the interest payable and communicate to the appellant for compliance - appeal disposed off. Issues:- Appeal against the order of Commissioner (A) dismissing the appellant's appeal on limitation without considering the merits of the case.- Dispute over the payment of service tax on fabrication services rendered to a client.- Appellant's contention regarding the quantification of interest by the department.- Applicability of reduced penalty and demand for 100% penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed challenging the order of the Commissioner (A) dismissing the appellant's appeal on limitation without delving into the merits of the case. The appellant was registered under service tax for various services, and the dispute arose when it was observed during an audit that service tax had not been paid on fabrication services provided to a client. Show-cause notices were issued proposing to recover significant amounts of service tax, interest, and penalties. The Joint Commissioner subsequently ordered the recovery of the service tax along with penalties. The appellant appealed this decision, which was rejected by the Commissioner (A) on grounds of being time-barred.2. The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable as it failed to appreciate the facts and law properly. The appellant contended that the appeal was within the limitation period as it was filed within 76 days from the date of receiving a letter demanding interest for delayed payment of service tax. The appellant highlighted that they had intimated the department about the payment of the entire service tax liability and voluntary computation of interest and reduced penalty. The appellant emphasized that the responsibility to quantify interest lay with the adjudicating authority and not the assessee. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument regarding the department's duty to provide proper quantification.3. The Assistant Commissioner (AR) defended the impugned order, but upon considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found the order dismissing the appeal on time bar to be unsustainable. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was filed within a condonable period and thus condoned the delay. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the letter demanding interest lacked proper quantification, and based on precedents, ruled that it was the department's duty to quantify the interest payable by the appellant. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the original authority to quantify the interest, and the demand for 100% penalty under Section 78 was set aside. The appeal was allowed by remand to the original authority for quantification of interest, which the appellant agreed to pay.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of limitation, quantification of interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, providing a detailed analysis and ruling in favor of the appellant on certain grounds while setting aside the demand for excessive penalty.