https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773242 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the service tax demand of Rs.82,27,883/- and appropriation of amounts paid by appellant and through cenvat credit. However, the penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. The Tribunal held that since appellant paid service tax and interest before issuance of show-cause notice dated 18.08.2010, proceedings under extended limitation period were unsustainable per Section 73(3). Relying on Karnataka HC precedent in Adecco Flexione case, the Tribunal ruled that penalty cannot be imposed when tax and interest are paid prior to notice, and exercised discretion under Section 80 to drop penalty despite no specific prayer for such relief. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773242 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the service tax demand of Rs.82,27,883/- and appropriation of amounts paid by appellant and through cenvat credit. However, the penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was set aside. The Tribunal held that since appellant paid service tax and interest before issuance of show-cause notice dated 18.08.2010, proceedings under extended limitation period were unsustainable per Section 73(3). Relying on Karnataka HC precedent in Adecco Flexione case, the Tribunal ruled that penalty cannot be imposed when tax and interest are paid prior to notice, and exercised discretion under Section 80 to drop penalty despite no specific prayer for such relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773242