Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 107 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - amount paid to foreign insurance companies for reinsurance as well as on the amount received by them from other insurance companies in the domestic sector - period May’06 to March-08 - Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) of the service tax rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The reinsurance premium was liable to service tax only w.e.f.01.05.2005 when the definition was amended to include re-insurer also as insurer. Thus, there were some confusion regarding payability of service tax on the re-insurance premium paid to foreign insurance companies. The issue became clear only after the issue of Taxation of Services (Provided from outside India and received in India ) Rules, 2006. After this, the Appellant has agreed their liability and paid service tax on the re-insurance premium paid by them to foreign companies. Thus, it is observed that there was no intention to evade payment of service tax on the part of the Appellant. In such cases, no penalty imposable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Reliance placed in the case of M/S. C.C.I. LOGISTICS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CX, KOLKATA NORTH COMMISSIONERATE (ERSTWHILE SERVICE TAX-I KOLKATA COMMISSIONERATE) [2021 (6) TMI 546 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where it was held that Since the tax amount alongwith interest has already been deposited by the assessee, I do not find any reason to uphold the penalty amount in absence of evidence of fraud or suppression with an intent to evade payment of tax. Hence, the penalty imposed is set aside. There was no mala fide intention on the part of the Appellant to evade payment of service tax. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is liable to be set aside - there is no ingredient available in this case to impose penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act , 1994. Accordingly, the Department appeal is liable to be rejected - The department appeal is rejected.
|