https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423365 The appeal centered on the imposition of a penalty under Section 78 for alleged non-payment of service tax. The appellant contested the tax on cash discount but had paid tax on Low Volume Compensation. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the cash discount demand but upheld the penalty for the service tax. However, the Member (Judicial) ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no concealment or contumacious conduct. As the appellant had rectified the tax issue upon audit, the penalty under Section 78 was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the penalty was revoked. en-us Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423365 The appeal centered on the imposition of a penalty under Section 78 for alleged non-payment of service tax. The appellant contested the tax on cash discount but had paid tax on Low Volume Compensation. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the cash discount demand but upheld the penalty for the service tax. However, the Member (Judicial) ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no concealment or contumacious conduct. As the appellant had rectified the tax issue upon audit, the penalty under Section 78 was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the penalty was revoked. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423365