<?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 (4) TMI 546 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78569</link>
    <description>The Department appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order on penalty imposition for non-payment of service tax before investigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside penalties imposed by the original authority, stating service tax was paid before the show-cause notice. The Department disagreed, citing a High Court judgment. The Technical Member found the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s reasoning unjustified but noted the relevance of the respondent&#039;s arguments on separate penalties and section 80 of the Finance Act. The decision remanded the matter for a fresh review, allowing both parties to present their case adequately. The appeal was allowed for reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 546 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78569</link>
      <description>The Department appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order on penalty imposition for non-payment of service tax before investigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside penalties imposed by the original authority, stating service tax was paid before the show-cause notice. The Department disagreed, citing a High Court judgment. The Technical Member found the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s reasoning unjustified but noted the relevance of the respondent&#039;s arguments on separate penalties and section 80 of the Finance Act. The decision remanded the matter for a fresh review, allowing both parties to present their case adequately. The appeal was allowed for reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>