https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202635 The appellate judge set aside the revisionary authority's decision to impose penalties on the appellant for service tax liability under sections 76 and 78. The judge emphasized the importance of reasonable cause in penalty imposition, referencing previous cases where penalties were waived for voluntary compliance and lack of intent to evade payment. Criticizing the disproportionate penalty imposed, the judge noted penalties should align with the offense and require evidence of fraud or collusion. In the absence of such evidence, the judge invoked section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to overturn the decision and ruled in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202635 The appellate judge set aside the revisionary authority's decision to impose penalties on the appellant for service tax liability under sections 76 and 78. The judge emphasized the importance of reasonable cause in penalty imposition, referencing previous cases where penalties were waived for voluntary compliance and lack of intent to evade payment. Criticizing the disproportionate penalty imposed, the judge noted penalties should align with the offense and require evidence of fraud or collusion. In the absence of such evidence, the judge invoked section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, to overturn the decision and ruled in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202635