<?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>2009 (8) TMI 634 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77109</link>
    <description>The tribunal rejected the appellants&#039; request for further adjournment due to excessive adjournments already granted. The penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside, while the penalty under Section 78 was upheld. The tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with tax laws and upheld the demand for tax along with interest against the appellants for non-disclosure of commissions earned, leading to penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 634 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77109</link>
      <description>The tribunal rejected the appellants&#039; request for further adjournment due to excessive adjournments already granted. The penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside, while the penalty under Section 78 was upheld. The tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with tax laws and upheld the demand for tax along with interest against the appellants for non-disclosure of commissions earned, leading to penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>