<?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 603 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252469</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in favor of the appellants. It was found that the appellants promptly paid the Service Tax and interest upon notification by the department, demonstrating no malicious intent. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not received full remuneration for their services during the period in question, making the allegation of utilizing Service Tax unsustainable. Consequently, immunity was granted to the appellants, and the penalty was reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:51:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 603 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252469</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 in favor of the appellants. It was found that the appellants promptly paid the Service Tax and interest upon notification by the department, demonstrating no malicious intent. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not received full remuneration for their services during the period in question, making the allegation of utilizing Service Tax unsustainable. Consequently, immunity was granted to the appellants, and the penalty was reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>