<?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 1604 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243389</link>
    <description>The appellant challenged penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, related to delayed service tax payment. The presiding officer emphasized timely tax remittance, rejecting the appellant&#039;s illiteracy as an excuse for delayed payment. The officer directed a partial deposit of Rs.50,000 within four weeks, with the remaining penalties waived upon compliance, balancing appellant and government interests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:43:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1604 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243389</link>
      <description>The appellant challenged penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, related to delayed service tax payment. The presiding officer emphasized timely tax remittance, rejecting the appellant&#039;s illiteracy as an excuse for delayed payment. The officer directed a partial deposit of Rs.50,000 within four weeks, with the remaining penalties waived upon compliance, balancing appellant and government interests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>