2024 (10) TMI 1348 - AT - Service Tax

Contractor wins penalty waiver for voluntary service tax payment despite authority's miscalculation under Sections 77, 78, and 80

M/s Yawale Constructions Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal in part regarding service tax penalties imposed on a contractor providing maintenance repair and manpower recruitment ... Short payment of service tax - interest for the delayed payment of service tax - Penalty - Maintenance & Repair Service - Man Power Recruitment & Supply Agency Service - extended period of limitation - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Original Authority has determined the tax due from the appellant to be less than the amount claimed to be payable by the appellant as per the calculation chart submitted by the appellant, and paid by them. Having noted so he went on to invoke the extended period of limitation, demanded interest and also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. The order in original only shows non application of the mind by the adjudicating authority. It seems that adjudicating authority has recorded all the finding in the matter just to justify imposition of penalty. Both the authorities below have misdirected themselves as there was no contest by the appellant to the invocation of the extended period or the demand of service tax. Appellant has suo motto computed the service tax due and has paid the said amount. He made the submission to this effect before the original authority and also before the appellate authority. He also deposited the interest due as has been noted by the First Appellate authority. He also pleaded his lack of knowledge and status as petty contractor not having means to understand the complexity of taxation of services. Both the authority agreed to these submissions and have still gone on to impose heavy penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Taking note of undisputed findings with regards to status of appellant and his compliance even before the adjudication/ appellate proceeding has been concluded there are no justification for not having considered extending the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and waiving of all the penalties imposable on the appellant. There are no merits in the impugned order to the extent it is in relation to the penalties imposed on the appellant. This is a fit case where penalties imposable under Section 77 and 78 should have been waived in terms of provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed in part. Issues:1. Upholding of service tax demand, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Appellant's contention of non-contestation of service tax amount and depositing the same.3. Invocation of extended period of limitation, imposition of interest, and penalties by the Original Authority.4. Appellant's plea of lack of knowledge and status as a petty contractor.5. Consideration of penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the Order-in-Original, confirming the demand of service tax along with interest and penalties. The appellant was providing taxable services to a specific recipient but had not discharged the service tax due. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The Appellant did not contest the service tax amount and voluntarily deposited the same. The appellant's defense was mainly focused on the quantification of the demand. The Original Authority acknowledged the deposit made by the appellant but still invoked the extended period of limitation, demanded interest, and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act.3. The Appellant argued lack of knowledge and being a petty contractor, not fully understanding the taxation complexities. Despite the appellant's cooperation and deposit of the tax amount, both the Original and Appellate Authorities imposed heavy penalties, disregarding the appellant's submissions.4. The Appellate Tribunal found that penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified, considering the appellant's status and compliance. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the service tax due, deposited interest, and pleaded lack of understanding regarding tax obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant.5. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the appellant's circumstances and compliance, suggesting that penalties under Sections 77 and 78 should have been waived under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The judgment highlighted the importance of fairness and proportionality in imposing penalties, especially in cases involving small contractors with limited turnover.This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the appeal, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision to partially allow the appeal by setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant.