https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78847 The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to a reduced penalty under the second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant had not obtained service tax registration or paid the applicable tax. The Tribunal held that the 25% penalty was not applicable as the appellant did not pay the determined amount and interest within the specified timeframe. However, the appellant was granted the benefit of the first proviso, reducing the penalty to 50% for a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's maintenance of records and transactions, making them eligible for the reduced penalty. The appellant was directed to calculate the total penalty liability and submit proof of payment to the authority. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:41:40 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:41:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78847 The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to a reduced penalty under the second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant had not obtained service tax registration or paid the applicable tax. The Tribunal held that the 25% penalty was not applicable as the appellant did not pay the determined amount and interest within the specified timeframe. However, the appellant was granted the benefit of the first proviso, reducing the penalty to 50% for a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the appellant's maintenance of records and transactions, making them eligible for the reduced penalty. The appellant was directed to calculate the total penalty liability and submit proof of payment to the authority. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. Highlights Service Tax Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:41:40 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78847