<?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 (2) TMI 1042 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244448</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under Section 78 for non-payment of Service Tax on a commercial construction project undertaken before the tax imposition. The appellant&#039;s genuine belief of non-liability, prompt tax payment post-notification, and lack of deliberate wrongdoing influenced the decision, emphasizing the significance of good faith, timely compliance, and contextual factors in penalty determinations under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:19:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1042 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244448</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under Section 78 for non-payment of Service Tax on a commercial construction project undertaken before the tax imposition. The appellant&#039;s genuine belief of non-liability, prompt tax payment post-notification, and lack of deliberate wrongdoing influenced the decision, emphasizing the significance of good faith, timely compliance, and contextual factors in penalty determinations under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>