Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai vs M/S. Shriram Tower Tech Ltd on 29 October, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/138/2006 & ST/CO/40817/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 01/2006, dated 28-03-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI
APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. SHRIRAM TOWER TECH LTD.
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvan AC (AR) For the Respondent Shri N. Viswanathan Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 29-10-2015 FINAL ORDER NO. 41699 / 2015 Revenue's submission is that all the authorities below including the revisionary authority had dropped the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 invoking section 80 thereof. Revenue has been aggrieved by the said act. Respondent explains that as an abundant caution taxes were collected to protect the interest of the assessee when the law was under confusion as has been recorded by the revisionary authority in para 7.3 of his order dated 28.03.06. He has recorded that the assessee was under a bonfa fide doubt relating to classification of drawings and designs under Consulting Engineering Service during the period 1999-2000. Such a bonfa fide belief was the reasonable cause attracting section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to protect the respondent from penalty under section 78 of the said Act.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. Perusal of para 7.2 of the revisional order shows that no penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed at the Adjudication stage appreciating cooperation of the respondent to the investigation. Record also does not reveal any hostile attitude of the respondent to keep any information hidden without submitting to the department. It was Consulting Engineer and provided drawing and designing service. The recording by revisional authority was that there was a bona fide belief of taxability of the service and that was under controversy by Revenue without any cogent evidence led. When the pleading of the respondent was that it had no malafides for imposition of penalty and such contention was not rebutted it is very difficult to reopen an adjudication which had granted relief to the respondent and Penalise him.
4. Revisional proceeding is initiated to protect the interest of Revenue, if the order passed by the authority below is prejudicial to its interest But the revisional authority did not find any prejudice caused by respondent to the Revenue. Rather, he found that approach of the respondent was bonafide which deserves consideration when the classification of the services was in controversy. So also the taxability thereof. was in doubt. He has also recorded that Revenue did not challenge the order of Commissioner (Appeals) when the respondent succeeded before him. Respondent also explains that appropriate tax liability within interest has been discharged.
5. All the aforesaid findings and observations do not convince to impose penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to concurrent findings of the authorities below. Consequently, Revenue appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ksr/rkp 15-12-2015 2