<?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>2012 (8) TMI 342 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215657</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act was not sustainable where the service tax demand was accepted and paid, and the delay was explained by confusion in the industry over classification and levy. On those facts, the failure to pay on time was not attributed to mala fide conduct, and reasonable cause was found for invoking section 80. The penalties were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 342 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215657</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act was not sustainable where the service tax demand was accepted and paid, and the delay was explained by confusion in the industry over classification and levy. On those facts, the failure to pay on time was not attributed to mala fide conduct, and reasonable cause was found for invoking section 80. The penalties were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>