<?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 (12) TMI 457 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162758</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a recalculation of the penalty amount in accordance with section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the minimum penalty. The discrepancy in calculating the number of days of delay in depositing the service tax was noted, leading to the decision to remand the case for proper reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:25:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 457 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162758</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a recalculation of the penalty amount in accordance with section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the minimum penalty. The discrepancy in calculating the number of days of delay in depositing the service tax was noted, leading to the decision to remand the case for proper reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>