<?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 (7) TMI 36 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248999</link>
    <description>The court upheld the confirmed duty liability for Business Auxiliary Service and penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant&#039;s argument that penalties should be waived under Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 was rejected as they failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delayed payment of service tax. The court emphasized the importance of timely and accurate payment of tax liabilities and upheld the penalties imposed by the lower authorities, ruling against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 36 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248999</link>
      <description>The court upheld the confirmed duty liability for Business Auxiliary Service and penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant&#039;s argument that penalties should be waived under Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 was rejected as they failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delayed payment of service tax. The court emphasized the importance of timely and accurate payment of tax liabilities and upheld the penalties imposed by the lower authorities, ruling against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>