https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31430 The penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was challenged by the appellant, a coaching center service provider. The Member (J) found that while the appellant did not suppress facts to evade duty, the delay in paying the differential tax warranted the penalty under Section 76. The imposition of penalty under Section 78 was set aside, while the penalty under Section 76 was upheld, resulting in a modification of the original order. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31430 The penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was challenged by the appellant, a coaching center service provider. The Member (J) found that while the appellant did not suppress facts to evade duty, the delay in paying the differential tax warranted the penalty under Section 76. The imposition of penalty under Section 78 was set aside, while the penalty under Section 76 was upheld, resulting in a modification of the original order. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31430