https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246950 The appellant was found liable for Service Tax as their activities were classified as 'commercial training and coaching services.' However, they were granted the benefit of cum-tax calculation for determining the tax liability. Penalties imposed on the appellant under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside by the Tribunal, considering the appellant's reasonable belief of non-liability and the retrospective clarification provided by the Finance Act, 2010. In conclusion, the appellant's liability to Service Tax was confirmed, cum-tax benefit allowed, and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were overturned. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246950 The appellant was found liable for Service Tax as their activities were classified as 'commercial training and coaching services.' However, they were granted the benefit of cum-tax calculation for determining the tax liability. Penalties imposed on the appellant under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside by the Tribunal, considering the appellant's reasonable belief of non-liability and the retrospective clarification provided by the Finance Act, 2010. In conclusion, the appellant's liability to Service Tax was confirmed, cum-tax benefit allowed, and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were overturned. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246950