Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1258 - CESTAT CHENNAIOnline information and database access and or retrieval service – Penalty u/s 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- Service tax is new legislation and debated only of late, there is no room for suppression or intent to evade payment of service tax - The service will fall in the ambit of service tax levy - At the same time, it is reasonable to expect that the appellants, who made their foray with these services only in October 2001, would, at least in the initial years, concentrate their efforts into making their entrepreneurship a success - any omission to suo moto come forward and discharge their service tax liability could very well have been due to ignorance of the liability or bonafide confusion concerting the taxing provisions or a combination of both but certainly not with intent, by suppression or concealment - The benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant - reasonable cause for the failure on the part of the assessee in discharging their duty liability - this is a fit case for invocation of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act and revoke the penalties imposed. The Commissioner has merely observed that the appellant failed to pay service tax in accordance with the provision of Finance Act, 1944, and a penalty u/s 76 is liable to be imposed - But, in other appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) had discussed in detail for invoking Section 80 of the Act – the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is proper and reasonable - after this proceedings, the appellants have been paying service tax regularly – thus the penalty imposed under Section 76 is not sustainable.
|