https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204244 CESTAT Bangalore held that penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were not sustainable where non-payment arose from a bona fide belief and the assessee had substantially discharged the tax after the liability was pointed out, so section 80 protection applied. It also set aside recovery under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the record did not prove collection of the invoiced amount as tax and no service tax was otherwise payable for the relevant period. The demand under Tour Operator's services was upheld as dropped, since the vehicles were not shown to be tourist vehicles under the statutory definition and rules. en-us Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204244 CESTAT Bangalore held that penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were not sustainable where non-payment arose from a bona fide belief and the assessee had substantially discharged the tax after the liability was pointed out, so section 80 protection applied. It also set aside recovery under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the record did not prove collection of the invoiced amount as tax and no service tax was otherwise payable for the relevant period. The demand under Tour Operator's services was upheld as dropped, since the vehicles were not shown to be tourist vehicles under the statutory definition and rules. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204244