https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263590 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the setting aside of a penalty imposed on the respondent, an 'Amway' distributor, for service tax on commission and incentives. The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions did not demonstrate an intent to evade tax, as the amounts received were not commission but price differentials. The Commissioner's order emphasized the lack of evidence supporting deliberate tax evasion, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. This case highlights the significance of assessing taxpayer intentions and evidence of intentional tax evasion in tax liability disputes. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263590 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the setting aside of a penalty imposed on the respondent, an 'Amway' distributor, for service tax on commission and incentives. The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions did not demonstrate an intent to evade tax, as the amounts received were not commission but price differentials. The Commissioner's order emphasized the lack of evidence supporting deliberate tax evasion, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. This case highlights the significance of assessing taxpayer intentions and evidence of intentional tax evasion in tax liability disputes. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263590