2018 (10) TMI 1075 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Penalty u/s 76 and 78 of FA – liability of tax duly discharged – Held that:- There is no dispute about the liability of Service Tax of ₹ 41,61,205/- pertaining to the period January, 2013 to March, 2013 which has been confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Also it is not in dispute that the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest of ₹ 2,13,191/- had been discharged by the respondent.
–
The learned Commissioner recorded his findings where it is held that 'the noticee had paid their entire service tax liability in respect of the impugned SCN by 14.08.2013 i.e. before initiation of investigation by the way of an authorized visit by the officials of the DGCEI to the premises of Gufic on 25.09.2013 which has resulted in the issuance of the said SCN on 21.10.2013. Hence the allegation of intention to evade payment of Service Tax on the part of the noticee does not stick. As such I do not find this to be a fit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ving that Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that even though the demand is confirmed for the normal period of limitation i.e. January, 2013 to March, 2013 while adjudicating show-cause notice issued on 21.10.2013, but taking into consideration that from 2008 to 2012 the demand being settled by the appellant under VCES Scheme, 2013, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his contention that the learned Commissioner, while confirming the penalty under section 76, failed to appreciate that Service Tax was not paid by the appellant for the period 2008 to 2012, even if, subsequently discharged the same before initiation of proceedings for recovery of the amount. He submits that penalty is rightly imposable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned C.A. for the respondent had submitted that respondent had discharged entire Service Tax liability with intere
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Act, 1994, the learned Commissioner recorded his findings at para 38 as follows:- 38.1. The noticee had paid the entire extent of Service Tax liability before issuance of SCN i.e. 21.10.2013. However the interest for the period January to March 2013 (post VCES) was paid on 25th of July 2015, i.e. much after the issuance of SCN and hence the noticee does not qualify for exemption from penalty under Section 76 (1) of FA, 1994, in as much as, though the Service tax liability was paid before issuance of the SCN, the relevant interest was paid only after a period of almost 2 years. The noticee has also paid the late fees of ₹ 20000/- vide challan dated 25.7.2015, in respect of the late filing of ST3 Returns for the period January to March 2013. 38.2. On perusal of the amended Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 quoted above, it is seen that the cases, in which fraud or collusion or willful mis- statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ithin the due date. But from the submissions made it is apparent that the said tax so left unpaid was made good by the assessee even before any investigation was initiated by the department, let alone the issue -of demand. Hence the said suppression was without any Intention to evade tax in as much as the relevant tax was paid before the initiation of investigation culminating in the issue of SCN. In keeping with the said facts, the noticee is paid for the period from January to March 2013 under section 76 and that the noticee is liable to pay late fees for the delay in filing returns, as applicable. 38.4 The noticee, as mentioned above, had paid their entire service tax liability in respect of the impugned SCN by 14.08.2013 i.e. before initiation of investigation by the way of an authorized visit by the officials of the DGCEI to the premises of Gufic on 25.09.2013 which has resulted in the issuance of the said SCN on 21.10.2013. Hence the allegation of intention to evade payment of Se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =