<?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 183 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76334</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was limited by the proviso to the amount of service tax payable, so it could not exceed the admitted liability and was reduced accordingly. Penalty under section 77 was sustained because the assessees failed to file ST-3 returns within the prescribed time, attracting the statutory consequence for delayed return filing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 183 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76334</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was limited by the proviso to the amount of service tax payable, so it could not exceed the admitted liability and was reduced accordingly. Penalty under section 77 was sustained because the assessees failed to file ST-3 returns within the prescribed time, attracting the statutory consequence for delayed return filing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>