https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4498 Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be set aside on the basis that the show cause notice omitted any proposal for penalty, because the notices contained specific averments calling upon the respondents to explain why such penalties should not be imposed. The appellate authority's reliance on precedent was also rejected, as that precedent turned on absence of deliberate intent to evade payment, which was not shown here. The order deleting penalty was therefore found unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after granting the respondents an opportunity of hearing. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4498 Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be set aside on the basis that the show cause notice omitted any proposal for penalty, because the notices contained specific averments calling upon the respondents to explain why such penalties should not be imposed. The appellate authority's reliance on precedent was also rejected, as that precedent turned on absence of deliberate intent to evade payment, which was not shown here. The order deleting penalty was therefore found unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after granting the respondents an opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4498