2019 (2) TMI 86 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Penalty – Non-discharge of Service Tax – appellant has paid major part of the service tax demand much before issuance of the SCN – Held that:- The reason for omission to pay the service tax is explained by them – appellant were filing returns as well as were paying service tax under the event management service. Thereafter Business Exhibition Service came to be introduced, with effect from 10.9.2004. They did not discharge the service tax for the reason of confusion as to the classification of service – On being instructed by the department in January 2005, they had remitted the service tax. It is also brought out that the appellants have not collected service tax separately and therefore the amount received should be considered as cum-tax value – The request of the appellant is reasonable and tenable.
–
It is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act to set aside the penalties imposed – the adjudicating authority shall requant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. None appeared for the appellant even though repeated notices were issued. The matter was taken up for disposal after perusal of records as well as hearing the ld. AR. 3. It is stated by the appellant that they have paid the service tax on the event management service upto the month of October 2004. Subsequently, the service of business exhibition was brought under service tax net with effect from 10.9.2004. They were under the confusion whether the exhibition conducted by them would fall under event management or business exhibition service. From October 2004 to December 2004, they had conducted two exhibitions at Madurai and Coimbatore. Service tax was not collected separately for the business exhibition service since the confusion existed and not paid to the Government. When the Preventive Unit visited the premises, as per the instructions, the appellants have paid the service tax. However, the quantification of service tax as per the show caus
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
charge the service tax for the reason of confusion as to the classification of service. On being instructed by the department in January 2005, they had remitted the service tax. It is also brought out that the appellants have not collected service tax separately and therefore the amount received should be considered as cum-tax value. The request of the appellant is reasonable and tenable. We therefore hold that the adjudicating authority shall requantify the service tax after giving the cum-tax benefit as well as the CENVAT credit benefit to the appellant. We are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act to set aside the penalties imposed as they are unwarranted, which we hereby do. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalties imposed and also directing the adjudicating authority to requantify the demand after giving cum-ax benefit as well as CENVAT credit. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with cons
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =