<?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>2006 (2) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162499</link>
    <description>Penalty was not sustainable where the service tax liability had been voluntarily discharged before issuance of the show-cause notice, because prior payment removed the basis for penal proceedings despite the retrospective validation of the levy. Interest on delayed service tax for goods transport operator services, however, remained payable only after expiry of the extended compliance period under the retrospective amendments and the additional two weeks allowed for filing returns, and continued until actual payment. The assessee therefore succeeded on penalty but failed on the limited interest demand for the period of delay after the extended statutory time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:50:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162499</link>
      <description>Penalty was not sustainable where the service tax liability had been voluntarily discharged before issuance of the show-cause notice, because prior payment removed the basis for penal proceedings despite the retrospective validation of the levy. Interest on delayed service tax for goods transport operator services, however, remained payable only after expiry of the extended compliance period under the retrospective amendments and the additional two weeks allowed for filing returns, and continued until actual payment. The assessee therefore succeeded on penalty but failed on the limited interest demand for the period of delay after the extended statutory time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>