https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345835 The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and remanded the case for quantification of service tax liability within the normal period. The ambiguity in interpreting the statutory definition of Business Auxiliary Service regarding Multi Level Marketing services led to the decision. The appellant's argument against penalties due to lack of fraud or intent to evade payment was accepted, invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345835 The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and remanded the case for quantification of service tax liability within the normal period. The ambiguity in interpreting the statutory definition of Business Auxiliary Service regarding Multi Level Marketing services led to the decision. The appellant's argument against penalties due to lack of fraud or intent to evade payment was accepted, invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345835