<?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 (8) TMI 902 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262985</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the appellant was liable for service tax under the agreement with Star India, upholding penalties under Sections 76 and 77. However, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside as the appellant had recorded and filed returns for the collected amount, showing no intention to evade tax. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, maintaining penalties under Sections 76 and 77 but overturning the penalty under Section 78.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 902 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262985</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the appellant was liable for service tax under the agreement with Star India, upholding penalties under Sections 76 and 77. However, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside as the appellant had recorded and filed returns for the collected amount, showing no intention to evade tax. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, maintaining penalties under Sections 76 and 77 but overturning the penalty under Section 78.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>