Rectification of Mistake - Having held that penalty is not ...

Penalty u/s 78 Not Applicable; Cannot Assert Limitation to Demand Confirmation Extent.

January 11, 2019

Case Laws Service Tax AT

Rectification of Mistake - Having held that penalty is not imposable, it cannot be held that penalty under Section 78 would be restricted to the extent of confirmation of demand.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Rectification of Mistake - Having held that penalty is not ...

Penalty u/s 78 Not Applicable; Cannot Assert Limitation to Demand Confirmation Extent.

January 11, 2019

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalty - in case of confirmation of demand u/s 73(A) there is no application of Section 76 and 78 for imposition of penalty. Therefore, the adjudicating...

Non-discharge of service tax - extended period invoked, service tax demanded - penalties imposed u/ss 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - appellant providing taxable...

Since the penalties imposed under Section 76 is upheld, penalties imposed under Section 78 cannot be justified, Hence the penalties imposed u/s 78 is set aside - In the...

Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or Business Auxiliary Service classification discussed. Extended period of limitation rightly invoked as certain agreements...

Extended period of limitation - demand of service tax with penalty - The provisions of section 73(4) of the Finance Act are not applicable because intention of the...

Waiver of penalty u/s 78 was allowed but waiver of penalty u/s 76 was refused by the tribunal - once the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure....

Levy of Service Tax - leasing of the land of Kandla Port Trust - The show cause notice was issued only for demand of interest and penalty and there is no demand of...

Demand of service tax from the Sub-contractor - Demand of service tax with interest confirmed - Levy of penalty u/s 77 & 78 waived invoking the provisions of section 80- AT

The irregularity as found in EA audit vis a vis prompt payment of service tax and subsequent payment of penalty in conformity to Section 78 (B), the confirmation of...

Benefit of reduced penalty u/s 78 - the appellant had failed to deposit 25% of the imposed penalty before the issuance of show cause notice or within 30 days of...

Penalty u/s 78 of the FA, 1994 - appellant had correctly advised not to challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax though...

Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be imposed simultaneously with penalty u/s 76 for the same offense. The decision in Nizam Sugar Factory case applies to...

Penalty u/s 76 & 78 - provisions of Section 78 having been invoked and penalty imposed, Section 76 penalty may not be justified - AT

Services rendered by appellant classified as works contract services, attracting service tax liability. Appellant failed to obtain service tax registration and pay...

Demand of differential service tax - From the SCN it is evident that all facts and figures were in the appellant’s records but they were belatedly scrutinized by...

Quick Updates: