https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250247 The appellate authority rejected the appellant's plea of time limitation but set aside penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to the absence of mala fide intent. The judgment emphasized the appellant's genuine belief in exemption from service tax and highlighted the inadvertent nature of non-payment. It was established that once penalties are annulled, the longer limitation period cannot be invoked by the Revenue. The case concluded with a remand for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period, reflecting a balanced approach to tax liabilities and penalty imposition. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 10:10:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250247 The appellate authority rejected the appellant's plea of time limitation but set aside penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to the absence of mala fide intent. The judgment emphasized the appellant's genuine belief in exemption from service tax and highlighted the inadvertent nature of non-payment. It was established that once penalties are annulled, the longer limitation period cannot be invoked by the Revenue. The case concluded with a remand for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period, reflecting a balanced approach to tax liabilities and penalty imposition. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250247