https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336634 The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, finding the appellant's actions amounted to suppression of facts to evade tax. The extended assessment period was deemed justified due to the appellant's non-disclosure and failure to register for service tax. The appellant's defense of ignorance of tax liability was rejected, emphasizing their obligation to comply with tax laws. Despite initial non-compliance with procedural requirements, the court allowed the appellant to pay the remaining tax, interest, and a reduced penalty of 25%, providing limited relief and modifying the CESTAT's order accordingly. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336634 The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, finding the appellant's actions amounted to suppression of facts to evade tax. The extended assessment period was deemed justified due to the appellant's non-disclosure and failure to register for service tax. The appellant's defense of ignorance of tax liability was rejected, emphasizing their obligation to comply with tax laws. Despite initial non-compliance with procedural requirements, the court allowed the appellant to pay the remaining tax, interest, and a reduced penalty of 25%, providing limited relief and modifying the CESTAT's order accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336634