<?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 (3) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77577</link>
    <description>Section 80 relief for non-payment of service tax on event management service was unavailable because the claimed bona fide belief was not substantiated and tax with interest was paid only later. Penalty liability was therefore sustained. On overlapping penalties, Sections 76 and 78 could not both survive for the same default: the Section 78 penalty was upheld, the Section 76 penalty was set aside, and the Section 77 penalty was retained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77577</link>
      <description>Section 80 relief for non-payment of service tax on event management service was unavailable because the claimed bona fide belief was not substantiated and tax with interest was paid only later. Penalty liability was therefore sustained. On overlapping penalties, Sections 76 and 78 could not both survive for the same default: the Section 78 penalty was upheld, the Section 76 penalty was set aside, and the Section 77 penalty was retained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>