<?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 (11) TMI 687 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148681</link>
    <description>Service tax default on agency commission attracted penalty despite the plea of bona fide belief because the levy had been in force since July 2003 and the default continued until October 2004; however, the penalty under Section 76 was reduced in view of the lower tax liability after excluding incentives. Incentives were held not liable to service tax on the basis of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier decision, and the penalty under Section 78 could not survive because Sections 76 and 78 were treated as mutually exclusive; the Section 78 penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 18:37:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 687 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148681</link>
      <description>Service tax default on agency commission attracted penalty despite the plea of bona fide belief because the levy had been in force since July 2003 and the default continued until October 2004; however, the penalty under Section 76 was reduced in view of the lower tax liability after excluding incentives. Incentives were held not liable to service tax on the basis of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier decision, and the penalty under Section 78 could not survive because Sections 76 and 78 were treated as mutually exclusive; the Section 78 penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>