<?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>2014 (1) TMI 206 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241981</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed in part regarding penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of service tax for outdoor catering services. The Tribunal found that financial hardship constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, thus penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were not justified. However, the penalty under Section 77 was upheld as the appellant failed to comply with filing ST-3 returns despite being a registered unit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2014 06:50:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 206 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241981</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed in part regarding penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of service tax for outdoor catering services. The Tribunal found that financial hardship constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, thus penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were not justified. However, the penalty under Section 77 was upheld as the appellant failed to comply with filing ST-3 returns despite being a registered unit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>