https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464779 CESTAT held that the appellant had accepted liability for service tax on amounts received as publicity charges and began discharging tax from May 2006; the show-cause notice was not vitiated by misdescription of the service. Demand for service tax and interest was sustained for the normal period only. Invocation of the extended period failed for lack of deliberate suppression or intent to evade, so penalty under section 78 was set aside. Penalty under section 77 was also not attracted as ST-3 returns were filed with details the appellant considered correct. Appeal allowed; impugned order upheld in part. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 20:20:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464779 CESTAT held that the appellant had accepted liability for service tax on amounts received as publicity charges and began discharging tax from May 2006; the show-cause notice was not vitiated by misdescription of the service. Demand for service tax and interest was sustained for the normal period only. Invocation of the extended period failed for lack of deliberate suppression or intent to evade, so penalty under section 78 was set aside. Penalty under section 77 was also not attracted as ST-3 returns were filed with details the appellant considered correct. Appeal allowed; impugned order upheld in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464779