https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76726 Penalty under Section 78 and the daily penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 were held unsustainable where service tax and interest had been paid and the Revenue failed to prove suppression. The assessee's explanation was that tax on Goods Transport Service was discharged when freight was incurred by it, and non-payment arose only for freight incurred by the CHA under a bona fide belief that liability rested on the CHA. In the absence of contrary evidence, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the factual basis for penalty was not established; the penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76726 Penalty under Section 78 and the daily penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 were held unsustainable where service tax and interest had been paid and the Revenue failed to prove suppression. The assessee's explanation was that tax on Goods Transport Service was discharged when freight was incurred by it, and non-payment arose only for freight incurred by the CHA under a bona fide belief that liability rested on the CHA. In the absence of contrary evidence, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the factual basis for penalty was not established; the penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76726