https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363127 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant for failing to correctly declare the value of services in ST-3 returns, leading to short payment of service tax. Despite the appellant's argument of unintentional error and immediate payment post-audit, the Tribunal deemed the actions as suppression of facts, justifying the penalty. The judgment emphasized that payment before notice does not negate penalty imposition, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the Order-in-Appeal based on established legal principles. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:22:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363127 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant for failing to correctly declare the value of services in ST-3 returns, leading to short payment of service tax. Despite the appellant's argument of unintentional error and immediate payment post-audit, the Tribunal deemed the actions as suppression of facts, justifying the penalty. The judgment emphasized that payment before notice does not negate penalty imposition, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the Order-in-Appeal based on established legal principles. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363127