Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Trans Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd vs Cst, Chennai-Ii on 30 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
ST/41927/2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2016 (STA-II) dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Chennai).
M/s. Trans Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CST, Chennai-II : Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Sankara Vadivevelu, Advocate For the appellant Shri S. Nagalilngam, AC (AR), For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. PANDA, Judicial Member Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.12.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 42563 / 2016 Appellant says that there was no intention of evasion. When the appellant conceived that its liability has arisen in terms of the legal advice, it has discharged its entire service tax liability with interest before the issuance of SCN for which the provision of Section 73 (4) of Finance Act, 1994, was not applicable. Appellant is covered by Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty may not be imposed when interest and tax elements have been paid. However, the case of the appellant was certainly a non-discharge of liability of service tax only under lack of legal conception of law.
2. Revenue on the other hand says that the appellate authority has held that appellant is not covered by Section 73 (3) of Finance Act, 1994.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. To a great extent, appellants fair submission as above, demonstrates the case that the adjudicating authority has considered its case to the extent concession in penalty is permissible in terms of his order in para 21 (ix) of the adjudication order dated 27.02.2016. Appellants averment is that the taxes have been paid before issuance of SCN and interest later but before adjudication for which penalty is not imposable invites provision of section 73(3) of the Act. The elements of Section 73 (4) has not been vigorously tested by the appellate authority to reach to the conclusion that the adjudicating authority is faulty. Adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that concession in penalty shall reduce the dispute. Therefore, it would proper to agree to his order for reduction of litigation setting aside the appellate order to that extent. Accordingly, appellant is directed to pay penalty to the extent of 25% of tax due within a month of receipt of this order and inform the adjudicating authority as to exercise of the option of concessional penalty filing an application to that effect.
5. With the aforesaid direction, appeal is partly allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER BB 1