<?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 489 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240824</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for a 6-day delay in filing the return. The tribunal found the revisional authority&#039;s decision unreasonable and unsustainable, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s mitigating factors of financial crisis and the period predating a tax-friendly scheme. It held that Section 80 was not invoked by the adjudicating authority, rendering the revisional authority&#039;s introduction of new grounds for penalty imposition unjustified. The tribunal considered the appellant&#039;s circumstances and mitigating factors, leading to the appeal&#039;s success without the need for pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:12:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 489 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240824</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for a 6-day delay in filing the return. The tribunal found the revisional authority&#039;s decision unreasonable and unsustainable, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s mitigating factors of financial crisis and the period predating a tax-friendly scheme. It held that Section 80 was not invoked by the adjudicating authority, rendering the revisional authority&#039;s introduction of new grounds for penalty imposition unjustified. The tribunal considered the appellant&#039;s circumstances and mitigating factors, leading to the appeal&#039;s success without the need for pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>