<?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 (10) TMI 61 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251927</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s non-compliance constituted deliberate default under the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty under Section 76 was set aside, and the penalty under Section 78 was confirmed. The appellant partially succeeded in the appeal by depositing 25% of the penalty within the stipulated period, leading to the conclusion of the show-cause notice issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:53:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 61 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251927</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s non-compliance constituted deliberate default under the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty under Section 76 was set aside, and the penalty under Section 78 was confirmed. The appellant partially succeeded in the appeal by depositing 25% of the penalty within the stipulated period, leading to the conclusion of the show-cause notice issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>