https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183424 The Court held that no penalty should have been imposed on the service provider under sections 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent's valid explanation for the delayed payment, coupled with the provisions of section 80 of the Act, justified the absence of any penalty. The Court emphasized the failure to consider section 80 by the authorities and declined the Revenue's request for a decision, stating that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the imposition of a penalty. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:00:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183424 The Court held that no penalty should have been imposed on the service provider under sections 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent's valid explanation for the delayed payment, coupled with the provisions of section 80 of the Act, justified the absence of any penalty. The Court emphasized the failure to consider section 80 by the authorities and declined the Revenue's request for a decision, stating that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the imposition of a penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183424