<?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 (2) TMI 203 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76578</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the service tax demand and interest had already been paid and the assessee established reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal treated the matter as confined to penalty, relied on an earlier Section 80 relief approach, and found that the ingredients for imposing penalty were not satisfied. On that basis, Section 80 protection was applied and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 203 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76578</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the service tax demand and interest had already been paid and the assessee established reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal treated the matter as confined to penalty, relied on an earlier Section 80 relief approach, and found that the ingredients for imposing penalty were not satisfied. On that basis, Section 80 protection was applied and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>