<?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>2013 (4) TMI 72 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221876</link>
    <description>The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore stemmed from a dispute regarding a service tax demand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The original demand of Rs. 3,73,208/- was reduced to Rs. 3,10,047/- on appeal, with certain penalties upheld. The appellant&#039;s plea for waiver of penalty under Section 78 was rejected due to previous penalties and lack of cooperation in investigation. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s ignorance of tax obligations untenable and ruled against invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing lack of merit in the appellant&#039;s arguments and legal precedents presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 72 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221876</link>
      <description>The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore stemmed from a dispute regarding a service tax demand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The original demand of Rs. 3,73,208/- was reduced to Rs. 3,10,047/- on appeal, with certain penalties upheld. The appellant&#039;s plea for waiver of penalty under Section 78 was rejected due to previous penalties and lack of cooperation in investigation. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s ignorance of tax obligations untenable and ruled against invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing lack of merit in the appellant&#039;s arguments and legal precedents presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>