https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34795 The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, setting aside the penalty under Section 76 but upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Section 77. The appellant, a Practicing Chartered Accountant, demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in payment of service tax, attributing errors to junior staff. However, the responsibility to know and advise on legal matters led to the penalty under Section 77 being upheld despite the waiver under Section 76. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34795 The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, setting aside the penalty under Section 76 but upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Section 77. The appellant, a Practicing Chartered Accountant, demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in payment of service tax, attributing errors to junior staff. However, the responsibility to know and advise on legal matters led to the penalty under Section 77 being upheld despite the waiver under Section 76. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34795