<?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>1998 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11</link>
    <description>Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was construed to mean that the defaulting person is liable to a minimum penalty of Rs. 100, while the higher amount of up to Rs. 200 applies for each day the failure continues. The phrase &quot;for every day&quot; was held to qualify only the maximum figure, not the minimum amount. On that reading, the reduction of penalty to Rs. 1,000 in each case was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11</link>
      <description>Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was construed to mean that the defaulting person is liable to a minimum penalty of Rs. 100, while the higher amount of up to Rs. 200 applies for each day the failure continues. The phrase &quot;for every day&quot; was held to qualify only the maximum figure, not the minimum amount. On that reading, the reduction of penalty to Rs. 1,000 in each case was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>