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 grants stay on penalty recovery, orders fresh review & leniency evaluation under Finance Act</h1> <h3>Gujarat Test House Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad</h3> Gujarat Test House Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - [2009] 23 STT 95 (AHD. - CESTAT) Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under section 76 and section 77 of Finance Act, 1994.2. Applicability of penalty rates before and after amendments.3. Request for lenient view under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. Ignorance of law as an excuse for contravention of legal provisions.Analysis:1. The appellants were penalized under section 76 and section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment and filing of returns related to technical tests and inspection services. The service tax liability was paid with interest, and the penalty was the subject of dispute.2. The advocate for the appellants argued that the penalties were imposed at higher rates than those applicable during the period of delayed payment. He highlighted that the amendments introducing higher penalty rates were made after the penalties were imposed on the appellants. Additionally, he pointed out that section 77 did not initially provide for penalties related to late return filing, which was introduced later.3. The appellants sought a lenient view under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing that the delayed payment was due to their intention to pay the service tax from Cenvat credit, a method they were advised against by the Revenue. The Departmental Representative opposed this request, emphasizing that the grounds for amendment of the law and leniency under section 80 were not raised before the lower authorities.4. The Tribunal acknowledged that the grounds for leniency and the impact of amendments to sections 76 and 77 were not presented before the lower authorities. However, considering the subsequent amendments and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition against penalty recovery, remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration, and directed the consideration of the appellants' claim for lenient view under section 80. The Tribunal emphasized that ignorance of the law cannot serve as an excuse for non-compliance with legal provisions, but decided to give the appellants an opportunity to present their case before the Adjudicating Authority.
TaxTMI 