https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750792 The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed simultaneously for service tax recovery on business auxiliary services. The appellant had paid service tax with interest after departmental intimation, claiming bonafide belief regarding tax liability. Following precedent from Gujarat HC in Raval Trading Company case, the tribunal modified the order to remove section 76 penalty while upholding section 78 and other penalties. The appeal was partly allowed. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750792 The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed simultaneously for service tax recovery on business auxiliary services. The appellant had paid service tax with interest after departmental intimation, claiming bonafide belief regarding tax liability. Following precedent from Gujarat HC in Raval Trading Company case, the tribunal modified the order to remove section 76 penalty while upholding section 78 and other penalties. The appeal was partly allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750792