https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336626 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's Order-in-Revision imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles. The appellant successfully argued that the penalty was unjustly imposed without the intention to evade duty, supported by relevant case laws like Uma Nath Pandey and Amit Kumar Saha. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that the penalty under Section 78 was redundant as penalties under Sections 76 & 77 had already been imposed, citing cases like Handimann Services Ltd. and JOE Transport. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:53:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336626 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's Order-in-Revision imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles. The appellant successfully argued that the penalty was unjustly imposed without the intention to evade duty, supported by relevant case laws like Uma Nath Pandey and Amit Kumar Saha. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that the penalty under Section 78 was redundant as penalties under Sections 76 & 77 had already been imposed, citing cases like Handimann Services Ltd. and JOE Transport. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336626