<?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 (4) TMI 862 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258981</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, requiring the appellants to make a specified pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty within four weeks. Compliance was mandated by a set date, with the balance of the penalty stayed pending the appeal process. The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was justified due to fraud and misrepresentation, distinguishing a previous case where a waiver was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:34:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 862 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258981</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, requiring the appellants to make a specified pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty within four weeks. Compliance was mandated by a set date, with the balance of the penalty stayed pending the appeal process. The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was justified due to fraud and misrepresentation, distinguishing a previous case where a waiver was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>