https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428118 The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand under the Repair and Maintenance category post-amendment, rejecting the appellant's argument based on the absence of a maintenance contract. It set aside the penalty under Section 76, agreeing penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. While dismissing the time-barred claim, it allowed cum-tax benefit eligibility, emphasizing statutory tax liability despite ignorance of the law. The appeal was partially allowed, sustaining the service tax demand with re-quantification using cum-tax value and excluding the penalty under Section 76. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:19:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428118 The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand under the Repair and Maintenance category post-amendment, rejecting the appellant's argument based on the absence of a maintenance contract. It set aside the penalty under Section 76, agreeing penalties under both Sections 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously. While dismissing the time-barred claim, it allowed cum-tax benefit eligibility, emphasizing statutory tax liability despite ignorance of the law. The appeal was partially allowed, sustaining the service tax demand with re-quantification using cum-tax value and excluding the penalty under Section 76. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428118