https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425477 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the case fell under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, rather than Section 73(4). It concluded that the appellant did not have the intent to evade tax, as evidenced by the payment of service tax along with interest before the show cause notice was issued. Additionally, the Tribunal held that penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were unjustified due to the lack of evidence of intentional evasion. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2022 09:18:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425477 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the case fell under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, rather than Section 73(4). It concluded that the appellant did not have the intent to evade tax, as evidenced by the payment of service tax along with interest before the show cause notice was issued. Additionally, the Tribunal held that penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were unjustified due to the lack of evidence of intentional evasion. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425477