https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364370 Concurrent findings that the assessee knew its service tax liability, filed returns denying liability, and paid only after investigation justified penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; prior payment before the show cause notice did not erase the failure to comply with return obligations, so both penalties were upheld. The amendment making penalties under Sections 76 and 78 mutually exclusive was held to be prospective, not retrospective, and therefore did not apply to the past period in dispute. The appeal failed and the penalty order affirmed by the Tribunal remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364370 Concurrent findings that the assessee knew its service tax liability, filed returns denying liability, and paid only after investigation justified penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; prior payment before the show cause notice did not erase the failure to comply with return obligations, so both penalties were upheld. The amendment making penalties under Sections 76 and 78 mutually exclusive was held to be prospective, not retrospective, and therefore did not apply to the past period in dispute. The appeal failed and the penalty order affirmed by the Tribunal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364370