https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221776 The judge confirmed the demand for security agency services for the period in question but waived penalties under Section 78 due to the lack of specific allegations of fraud or suppression. Penalties under Sections 75A and 77 were upheld. The appellant's argument that the demand before the name change was invalid was rejected as the judge considered the service provider to be the same individual despite the name change. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, providing insights into the demand confirmation and penalty issues under the Finance Act, 1994. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221776 The judge confirmed the demand for security agency services for the period in question but waived penalties under Section 78 due to the lack of specific allegations of fraud or suppression. Penalties under Sections 75A and 77 were upheld. The appellant's argument that the demand before the name change was invalid was rejected as the judge considered the service provider to be the same individual despite the name change. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, providing insights into the demand confirmation and penalty issues under the Finance Act, 1994. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221776