<?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 1001 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242785</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD directed the main appellant, a security agency service provider, to deposit outstanding service tax amounts within eight weeks and comply with reporting requirements. The tribunal denied a waiver for unremitted service tax collections but considered a partial deposit as payment for interest and penalties. It waived pre-deposit of penalty amounts for directors and individuals, subject to compliance. The stay petitions were granted for the main appellant upon meeting pre-deposit conditions, with detailed directives for compliance and reporting provided. Compliance with deposit requirements and addressing penalties on individuals were emphasized in the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1001 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242785</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD directed the main appellant, a security agency service provider, to deposit outstanding service tax amounts within eight weeks and comply with reporting requirements. The tribunal denied a waiver for unremitted service tax collections but considered a partial deposit as payment for interest and penalties. It waived pre-deposit of penalty amounts for directors and individuals, subject to compliance. The stay petitions were granted for the main appellant upon meeting pre-deposit conditions, with detailed directives for compliance and reporting provided. Compliance with deposit requirements and addressing penalties on individuals were emphasized in the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>