https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256974 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant under "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use" (SOTG) instead of "Transport of Passengers by Air Service," upholding the demand for service tax under SOTG. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were confirmed, but penalties under Section 78 were set aside due to the absence of fraud. The denial of Cenvat credit was upheld, and the appellant was liable for interest on the wrongly availed credit. Consideration received was to be treated as cum-tax if not collected separately. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 May 2016 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256974 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant under "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use" (SOTG) instead of "Transport of Passengers by Air Service," upholding the demand for service tax under SOTG. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were confirmed, but penalties under Section 78 were set aside due to the absence of fraud. The denial of Cenvat credit was upheld, and the appellant was liable for interest on the wrongly availed credit. Consideration received was to be treated as cum-tax if not collected separately. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256974