https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169271 The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 but set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This decision was based on the lack of evidence showing intentional evasion by the appellant. The Commissioner found that the failure to pay service tax on time was due to the consultant's inaction, not deliberate evasion by the appellant. As a result, the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the penalty under Section 78 was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:11:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169271 The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 but set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This decision was based on the lack of evidence showing intentional evasion by the appellant. The Commissioner found that the failure to pay service tax on time was due to the consultant's inaction, not deliberate evasion by the appellant. As a result, the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the penalty under Section 78 was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169271