Imposition of penalty - amended Section 78 shall clearly apply ...

Service Tax

March 18, 2016

Imposition of penalty - amended Section 78 shall clearly apply at the time of Adjudication of the show cause notice. Therefore, the penalty is imposable equal to 50% of the Service Tax amount not paid. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Imposition of penalty - amended Section 78 shall clearly apply ...

Service Tax

March 18, 2016

You may also like:

Imposition of penalties - Mere collection and delay to remit to the Government cannot be considered as an act of suppression - The penalty imposed u/s 78 is unwarranted.

Imposition of penalty u/s 78 - there was a bonafide error in not recording the amount in the ST-3 return is seems to be acceptable - penalty waived - AT

Imposition of penalty - Advertisement Agency Service - non-payment of Service tax - Section 78 - when the first SCN was issued, the subsequent SCN cannot allege...

Penalty imposed u/s 76, 77 & 78 - renting of immovable property - case is squarely covered for non imposition of penalties under Section 80A - AT

Whether the unamended provision of Section 78 according to which 100% penalty or amended provision of Section 78 according to which 50% penalty is applicable in the case...

Imposition of penalty under Section 78 - Merely because penalty under Section 78 has been imposed for the earlier period, no penalty can be imposed for any subsequent...

Levy of penalty u/s 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - taxability of Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement - it is a case of bonafide mistake - no penalty - AT

Penalty u/s 78 - Commercial training or Coaching services - the law was amended retrospectively to validate the levy of service tax on coaching and training services...

Penalty u/s 78 - the provisions that shall apply are those existing at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, there was no scope for the lower appellate...

Imposition of penalties - Apart from the statement there are ample documentary evidences which clearly establish that appellants were involved in aiding and abetting...

Quick Updates: