<?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 (4) TMI 772 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128614</link>
    <description>The appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellants for delayed payment of service tax under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was rejected by the Tribunal. The penalty of Rs. 16,136/- and Rs. 1000/- was upheld, as the delay was attributed to the appellants&#039; negligence in obtaining deduction details. Despite the appellants&#039; claim of unintentional delay, the Tribunal found their explanation insufficient, noting that they had received TDS details promptly. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the unjustified delay of over 6 months. The penalty was upheld in the absence of the appellants, who failed to appear despite multiple notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:26:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 772 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128614</link>
      <description>The appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellants for delayed payment of service tax under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was rejected by the Tribunal. The penalty of Rs. 16,136/- and Rs. 1000/- was upheld, as the delay was attributed to the appellants&#039; negligence in obtaining deduction details. Despite the appellants&#039; claim of unintentional delay, the Tribunal found their explanation insufficient, noting that they had received TDS details promptly. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the unjustified delay of over 6 months. The penalty was upheld in the absence of the appellants, who failed to appear despite multiple notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128614</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>