<?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 (12) TMI 265 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240600</link>
    <description>Penalty for service tax non-payment was held unsustainable where the assessee had paid the tax and interest before issue of the show cause notice, and reasonable cause had already been accepted for dropping penalties under Sections 76 and 77. That accepted finding was treated as equally applicable to the proposed penalty under Section 78, and in the absence of material showing wilful suppression or intent to evade, the Section 78 penalty could not survive. The assessee therefore succeeded on penalty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 08:05:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 265 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240600</link>
      <description>Penalty for service tax non-payment was held unsustainable where the assessee had paid the tax and interest before issue of the show cause notice, and reasonable cause had already been accepted for dropping penalties under Sections 76 and 77. That accepted finding was treated as equally applicable to the proposed penalty under Section 78, and in the absence of material showing wilful suppression or intent to evade, the Section 78 penalty could not survive. The assessee therefore succeeded on penalty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>