2008 (3) TMI 47 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal overturns penalties for late tax payment, citing pre-notice settlement as per Finance Act

1. M/s. Tidewater Shipping Private Limited, 2. Mr. Madhusudan Balaji, 3. M/s. JBC Impex, 4. M/s. Macro Services Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax / Central Excise

The Tribunal found that penalties imposed under sections 76, 77, and 78 for non-payment of Service Tax were unjustified as the appellants paid the entire ... If the assessee cleared the Service Tax due along with interest on his own and even on the insistence of the departmental authority, then no penalty proceedings can be taken against them - Section 73(3) read with CBEC circular dated 3-10-2007 - In other words, all the proceedings against the appellants will be deemed to have been concluded on clearance of Service Tax along with Interest Issues:1. Imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 for non-payment of Service Tax.2. Discretion under section 80 of the Finance Act regarding penalty imposition.3. Applicability of penalties when duty and interest are paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice.4. Interpretation of bonafide belief for non-payment of Service Tax.5. Legal principles regarding penalty imposition in tax evasion cases.Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with the imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 for non-payment of Service Tax in multiple cases. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants for not paying the required Service Tax, leading to penalties being imposed. The appellants paid the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest before the issue of Show Cause Notice in each case.2. The lower authorities used the discretion under section 80 of the Finance Act and did not impose penalties in cases where the duty liability was discharged before the Show Cause Notice. However, the Revisionary Authority imposed penalties under section 78, disagreeing with the lower authorities' decision.3. The issue of whether penalties should be imposed when the duty and interest are paid before the Show Cause Notice was a significant point of contention. The learned Advocates argued that no penalty should be levied in such cases, citing previous case laws supporting this principle.4. The argument against the appellants was that there was suppression of facts leading to tax evasion, making them liable for penalties. The learned SDR contended that the appellants were not under a bonafide belief for non-payment of Service Tax, justifying the penalty imposition.5. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, concluded that the appellants paid the Service Tax due before the Show Cause Notice, as per the details provided. It was highlighted that if the duty is paid before the issuance of the notice, no penalty or interest can be levied. Reference was made to Section 73(3) of the Finance Act and a Board's Circular, indicating that penalty proceedings cannot be initiated if the tax and interest are cleared by the assessee voluntarily.6. In light of the above, the Tribunal found the revisionary orders enhancing penalties to be unjustified. The judgment deemed the penalties imposed, especially in one case, as harsh since the appellants had paid the entire amount before the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to penalty imposition for non-payment of Service Tax, discretion under the Finance Act, interpretation of bonafide belief, and legal principles governing penalty imposition in tax evasion cases.