<?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 239 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76610</link>
    <description>Penalty reduction under the first proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was sustained because service tax and interest had been paid before the show cause notice, satisfying the statutory basis referred to in the order. Sections 76 and 78 were treated as mutually exclusive, so the Revenue could not seek enhancement of the Section 76 penalty in appeal when the assessees had not challenged the reduced penalty. The reduced penalty was therefore left undisturbed, and no enhancement under Section 76 was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 239 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76610</link>
      <description>Penalty reduction under the first proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was sustained because service tax and interest had been paid before the show cause notice, satisfying the statutory basis referred to in the order. Sections 76 and 78 were treated as mutually exclusive, so the Revenue could not seek enhancement of the Section 76 penalty in appeal when the assessees had not challenged the reduced penalty. The reduced penalty was therefore left undisturbed, and no enhancement under Section 76 was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>