https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375239 The appeal was dismissed, upholding the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) was justified due to value suppression and misdeclaration by the appellant. Despite claiming no malafide intention, the appellant's actions led to penalties under Section 78 being deemed applicable. The decision was rendered on 30.01.2019. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375239 The appeal was dismissed, upholding the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) was justified due to value suppression and misdeclaration by the appellant. Despite claiming no malafide intention, the appellant's actions led to penalties under Section 78 being deemed applicable. The decision was rendered on 30.01.2019. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375239