https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177177 Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act was upheld because the demand fell within the normal limitation period and earlier show cause notices on the same taxable activity had already put the assessee on notice about taxability. On those facts, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade service tax was not established in the manner required to displace the penalty. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:13:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177177 Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act was upheld because the demand fell within the normal limitation period and earlier show cause notices on the same taxable activity had already put the assessee on notice about taxability. On those facts, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade service tax was not established in the manner required to displace the penalty. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177177