<?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 (11) TMI 333 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253016</link>
    <description>Short payment of service tax reflected in the ST-3 return, without evidence of deliberate suppression or mala fide intent, attracted section 80 relief and the penalty for short payment was set aside. Cenvat credit was denied where the input service invoices were defective, including missing registration details, description and classification defects, mismatched credit figures, invoices in another person&#039;s name and illegibility, because proper invoices are mandatory for credit eligibility. Although the main penalties relating to the inadmissible credit were waived, a token penalty was sustained because the invoice deficiencies remained uncorrected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 333 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253016</link>
      <description>Short payment of service tax reflected in the ST-3 return, without evidence of deliberate suppression or mala fide intent, attracted section 80 relief and the penalty for short payment was set aside. Cenvat credit was denied where the input service invoices were defective, including missing registration details, description and classification defects, mismatched credit figures, invoices in another person&#039;s name and illegibility, because proper invoices are mandatory for credit eligibility. Although the main penalties relating to the inadmissible credit were waived, a token penalty was sustained because the invoice deficiencies remained uncorrected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>