<?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>2011 (7) TMI 847 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211409</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the reduction in penalty under Section 78, rejected the imposition of penalty under Section 76, and found no willful suppression of facts by the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of prompt compliance with tax obligations upon notification to avoid penalties under multiple sections of the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 847 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211409</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the reduction in penalty under Section 78, rejected the imposition of penalty under Section 76, and found no willful suppression of facts by the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of prompt compliance with tax obligations upon notification to avoid penalties under multiple sections of the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>