2023 (4) TMI 769 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal rejected for Finance Act penalties due to insufficient financial crisis justification.

Ace Test Labs And Consultancy Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin

The Tribunal rejected the appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's argument invoking Section 80 ... Levy of penalty u/s 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - evasion of service tax - appellant collected service tax from the service receivers but failed to deposit the service tax amount so collected with the Government Treasury - case of appellant is that they were under severe financial crisis - HELD THAT:- Financial Crisis cannot be a reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax even though collected from the customers but not deposited with the Government. Also, the process of payment of collected service tax was commenced only after the Department initiated investigation and issued the demand notice to the appellant. The circumstances of financial difficulty in arranging the funds for payment of service tax collected and raising funds for the treatment of her daughter cannot be a ground to invoke Section 80 for setting aside the penalty imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:The appeal against imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner(Appeals).Summary:The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, was alleged to have evaded service tax for a specific period. After investigation, a show-cause notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of the demand with interest. The appellant paid the demanded amount during adjudication, and no penalty was initially imposed. However, the Department reviewed the case and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78. The appellant appealed against the penalty imposition.The appellant's advocate argued that the proprietress was not involved in the day-to-day affairs, and the late husband managed the business. Financial difficulties arose after the husband's demise, necessitating funds for medical treatment. The advocate invoked Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing precedents to support waiving the penalty.The Revenue's representative contended that financial difficulties post-demand confirmation cannot justify penalty waiver under Section 80. The appellant's reason for non-payment, citing financial problems despite collecting service tax, was deemed insufficient by the Revenue.Upon review, the Tribunal found no merit in invoking Section 80. The provision states that penalties are not imposed if a reasonable cause for failure is proven. The appellant's financial crisis during the relevant period was not considered a reasonable cause for non-payment. Initiating payment only after investigation initiation further weakened the appellant's case. The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Sections 77 and 78, rejecting the appeal for lacking merit.In conclusion, the appeal against the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was rejected by the Tribunal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals).