Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT affirms that, having upheld the service tax demand, interest under Section 75 of the FA is automatically chargeable and the Appellant must pay appropriate interest for belated utilization of input service credit. Conversely, invocation of the extended period under the proviso and imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 78(1) of the FA are set aside: the Tribunal finds no positive act of wilful suppression or misstatement, the valuation issue arose from bona fide legal interpretation, revised returns were filed pre-order, and the extended period is unjustified. The O-in-O is modified accordingly; appeal allowed in part.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
