<?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 1188 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263271</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act for delayed payment of service tax. The Tribunal found the delay in payment to be genuine and justified, emphasizing that the appellants had paid the interest amount during an audit and there was no active suppression. Drawing on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not sustainable in this case, aligning with principles established in similar rulings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2015 06:34:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1188 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263271</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act for delayed payment of service tax. The Tribunal found the delay in payment to be genuine and justified, emphasizing that the appellants had paid the interest amount during an audit and there was no active suppression. Drawing on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not sustainable in this case, aligning with principles established in similar rulings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>