https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343956 Collection of service tax from customers without remittance to the Government was treated as evidence of intention to evade tax, supporting penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Subsequent payment of the tax and interest did not by itself remove the penalty exposure, and the plea for reduced penalty was rejected. The appellate challenge failed because no infirmity was found in the lower authority's conclusion that the non-remittance justified penal action, leaving the original order undisturbed. en-us Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343956 Collection of service tax from customers without remittance to the Government was treated as evidence of intention to evade tax, supporting penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Subsequent payment of the tax and interest did not by itself remove the penalty exposure, and the plea for reduced penalty was rejected. The appellate challenge failed because no infirmity was found in the lower authority's conclusion that the non-remittance justified penal action, leaving the original order undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343956