<?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 1609 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243394</link>
    <description>Where service tax and interest were paid before issuance of the show cause notice, section 73(3) barred notice for recovery in the absence of suppression. As the tax liability had already been discharged before notice was issued, and no allegation of suppression was made, the statutory precondition for further proceedings was not met. On that basis, penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act were held not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:44:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1609 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243394</link>
      <description>Where service tax and interest were paid before issuance of the show cause notice, section 73(3) barred notice for recovery in the absence of suppression. As the tax liability had already been discharged before notice was issued, and no allegation of suppression was made, the statutory precondition for further proceedings was not met. On that basis, penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act were held not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>