<?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>2015 (1) TMI 37 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254838</link>
    <description>Where service tax and interest were paid before issue of the show cause notice, the statutory bar in Section 73(3) applied and the notice ought not to have been issued. On that footing, the foundation for penalty proceedings was absent, because the liability had already been discharged before notice. Penalty under Section 76 was therefore not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 21:41:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 37 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254838</link>
      <description>Where service tax and interest were paid before issue of the show cause notice, the statutory bar in Section 73(3) applied and the notice ought not to have been issued. On that footing, the foundation for penalty proceedings was absent, because the liability had already been discharged before notice. Penalty under Section 76 was therefore not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>