https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360417 The penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was challenged in this case. The appellants argued that they had no intention to evade service tax, as all transactions were recorded, and cited industry challenges to the validity of service tax on construction of residential complexes. The Revenue contended that the appellants knowingly delayed tax payment. The Member (Judicial) noted the legal challenges to service tax on residential construction and waived the penalty, emphasizing the lack of malafide intent. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 May 2018 05:53:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360417 The penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was challenged in this case. The appellants argued that they had no intention to evade service tax, as all transactions were recorded, and cited industry challenges to the validity of service tax on construction of residential complexes. The Revenue contended that the appellants knowingly delayed tax payment. The Member (Judicial) noted the legal challenges to service tax on residential construction and waived the penalty, emphasizing the lack of malafide intent. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360417