https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76658 The Member (Judicial) set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the appellant, engaged in manufacturing Refined Cotton Oil. Despite not challenging the adjudication order, the appellant successfully argued that their activities did not fall under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and demonstrated their compliance with Central Excise duty as evidence of no intent to evade service tax. The Member emphasized the appellant's right to establish bonafide intentions during penalty proceedings, leading to the appeal's allowance based on the lack of intention to evade service tax. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76658 The Member (Judicial) set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the appellant, engaged in manufacturing Refined Cotton Oil. Despite not challenging the adjudication order, the appellant successfully argued that their activities did not fall under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and demonstrated their compliance with Central Excise duty as evidence of no intent to evade service tax. The Member emphasized the appellant's right to establish bonafide intentions during penalty proceedings, leading to the appeal's allowance based on the lack of intention to evade service tax. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76658