https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268235 The appellant's contention regarding the denial of benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST was upheld due to the failure to produce required documentary evidence. The interpretation of Mandap Keeper service and the inclusion of goods' value for service tax purposes were carefully considered, leading to the confirmation of the service tax demand. Regarding penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal restored penalties under Section 76 for specific show cause notices and set aside penalties under Section 78, based on evolving legal interpretations, making penalties under both sections mutually exclusive from a certain date. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268235 The appellant's contention regarding the denial of benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST was upheld due to the failure to produce required documentary evidence. The interpretation of Mandap Keeper service and the inclusion of goods' value for service tax purposes were carefully considered, leading to the confirmation of the service tax demand. Regarding penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal restored penalties under Section 76 for specific show cause notices and set aside penalties under Section 78, based on evolving legal interpretations, making penalties under both sections mutually exclusive from a certain date. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268235