1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appellate Tribunal upholds penalty pre-deposit requirement for appellants under Sections 76 & 77</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore upheld the requirement for the appellants to pre-deposit a penalty amount of Rs. 4,33,309/- along with penalties ... Appellants are required to pre-deposit penalty - allegation against the appellants are that they have utilized the services of foreign consultants for getting Food Drugs Authority (FDA) approval to sell their products in American markets and also the services relating to patent approval in USA the U.S. Patent Act - appellants have deposited the Service Tax, penalty and interest under protest, therefore, the stay application is rejected as infructuous The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore required the appellants to pre-deposit a penalty amount of Rs. 4,33,309/- along with penalties under Section 76 and Section 77. The appellants had already deposited the Service Tax and interest before the show cause notice. The stay application was rejected as the full amount had been deposited under protest.