https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328263 Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where service tax and interest had been paid before the show cause notice and the department failed to prove wilful suppression or intent to evade. The Tribunal noted that liability arose on reverse charge for services received from foreign entities and sponsorship services, but found the notice allegations vague, the case drawn from the assessee's records, and audit visits inconsistent with suppression. In the absence of mala fide intent, the extended period and consequential penalty were not justified. Revenue precedents were distinguished on their facts, while authority supporting waiver of penalty on similar facts was applied. en-us Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2016 10:44:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328263 Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where service tax and interest had been paid before the show cause notice and the department failed to prove wilful suppression or intent to evade. The Tribunal noted that liability arose on reverse charge for services received from foreign entities and sponsorship services, but found the notice allegations vague, the case drawn from the assessee's records, and audit visits inconsistent with suppression. In the absence of mala fide intent, the extended period and consequential penalty were not justified. Revenue precedents were distinguished on their facts, while authority supporting waiver of penalty on similar facts was applied. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328263