<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75957</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s appeals regarding penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax by the respondents. The penalties under Section 76 were dropped, and those under Section 78 were reduced to 25% due to timely payment before the show cause notice. Prompt payment upon notification of liability was acknowledged, leading to penalty reductions. The judgment underscored the discretionary nature of penalties under the Act, emphasizing the importance of timely payment and circumstances in penalty determination. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75957</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s appeals regarding penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax by the respondents. The penalties under Section 76 were dropped, and those under Section 78 were reduced to 25% due to timely payment before the show cause notice. Prompt payment upon notification of liability was acknowledged, leading to penalty reductions. The judgment underscored the discretionary nature of penalties under the Act, emphasizing the importance of timely payment and circumstances in penalty determination. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>