https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373942 The Tribunal upheld the demand on merits, classifying the appellant as a commercial concern providing Business Auxiliary Services. The invocation of the extended period for demand was rejected due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. Penalties under Section 77 and Section 76 were upheld, while the penalty under Section 78 was set aside. The appeal was remanded to the Original Authority for computation of demand with the mentioned penalties. en-us Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:36:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373942 The Tribunal upheld the demand on merits, classifying the appellant as a commercial concern providing Business Auxiliary Services. The invocation of the extended period for demand was rejected due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. Penalties under Section 77 and Section 76 were upheld, while the penalty under Section 78 was set aside. The appeal was remanded to the Original Authority for computation of demand with the mentioned penalties. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373942