https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786632 Penalties under Sections 77, 77(1A), 77(1C), 77(1D) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside on the basis that the assessee demonstrated a bona fide belief negating culpable intent, while the confirmed service tax demand was sustained; a claim for threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012 ST was refused because it raised mixed questions of fact and law that were not earlier pleaded or factually verified, leaving evidentiary determination to the adjudicating authority. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:10:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786632 Penalties under Sections 77, 77(1A), 77(1C), 77(1D) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside on the basis that the assessee demonstrated a bona fide belief negating culpable intent, while the confirmed service tax demand was sustained; a claim for threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012 ST was refused because it raised mixed questions of fact and law that were not earlier pleaded or factually verified, leaving evidentiary determination to the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786632