9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 44 - AT - Service TaxAssessee receive technical know-how from foreign co. and pay royalty to them department has created confusion in the mind of the appellants as to which of the two taxable services (Intellectual Property Service or Consulting Engineer s Service) would cover the present case - Delay in payment of service tax because of confusion - Penalty imposed u/s 76& 78 are vacated as there is reasonable cause for delay moreover tax has been paid with interest before SCN
Issues:
Penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The appeal was filed against penalties imposed on the assessee under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The department issued a show-cause notice demanding service tax under the proviso to Section 73(1) for royalty paid for "Intellectual Property Service" and also sought interest on service tax under Section 75. The penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were proposed, invoking the extended period of limitation due to alleged suppression of material facts. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties. The appellants contested the demands on factual and legal grounds. The challenge in the present appeal was against the penalties imposed. The appellants had obtained technical know-how and paid royalty to a supplier. The appellants had registered for "Intellectual Property Service" and paid the service tax with interest. The appellants argued that the extended period of limitation should not apply as they had bona fide doubts due to the department's inconsistent stance on the taxable service. They also claimed entitlement to Cenvat credit and the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that transfer of technology was outside the scope of "Consulting Engineer's Service" as held in previous decisions. The department's inconsistent stance created confusion for the appellants. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had paid the tax with interest and were entitled to Cenvat credit, leading to a revenue-neutral situation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessee were vacated, and the appeal was allowed. Judges: S/Shri P.C. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)
|
