https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205599 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's petition to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal found no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement to evade duty payment, considering the appellant's consistent activities falling under the business auxiliary services category introduced in 2003. Penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 were also set aside as there was no evidence of intentional evasion, with the Tribunal granting the stay petition unconditionally based on publicly available balance sheet information and lack of deliberate evasion. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2011 18:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205599 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's petition to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal found no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement to evade duty payment, considering the appellant's consistent activities falling under the business auxiliary services category introduced in 2003. Penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 were also set aside as there was no evidence of intentional evasion, with the Tribunal granting the stay petition unconditionally based on publicly available balance sheet information and lack of deliberate evasion. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205599