<?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 1554 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243339</link>
    <description>Penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act are treated as operating in distinct fields, so both may be imposed for the same default where the conduct attracts each provision. The Tribunal followed the binding view that deletion of the Section 76 penalty was unjustified merely because the Section 78 penalty had also been sustained and partly paid. On that basis, the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Section 76 penalty was held to remain imposable in addition to Section 78.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:42:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1554 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243339</link>
      <description>Penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act are treated as operating in distinct fields, so both may be imposed for the same default where the conduct attracts each provision. The Tribunal followed the binding view that deletion of the Section 76 penalty was unjustified merely because the Section 78 penalty had also been sustained and partly paid. On that basis, the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Section 76 penalty was held to remain imposable in addition to Section 78.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>