https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350834 Service tax demand was held not barred by limitation because the appellant had collected tax but failed to deposit it and also understated the taxable receipts in ST-3 and income tax returns, showing suppression and mala fide intent. On penalties, the adjudicating view was applied issue-wise: the penalty under Section 76 was set aside in the overall facts and circumstances, while the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustained along with the confirmed tax demand and interest. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350834 Service tax demand was held not barred by limitation because the appellant had collected tax but failed to deposit it and also understated the taxable receipts in ST-3 and income tax returns, showing suppression and mala fide intent. On penalties, the adjudicating view was applied issue-wise: the penalty under Section 76 was set aside in the overall facts and circumstances, while the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustained along with the confirmed tax demand and interest. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350834