<?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>2004 (11) TMI 2 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed service tax deposit and late return filing may be moderated on the facts where the assessee acted on a tax consultant&#039;s advice, later corrected the error, and paid interest. The conduct was not treated as mala fide, and Section 76 was described as prescribing only the maximum penalty, leaving room to reduce the quantum according to the circumstances. On these facts, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 2 - CESTAT (MUMBAI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed service tax deposit and late return filing may be moderated on the facts where the assessee acted on a tax consultant&#039;s advice, later corrected the error, and paid interest. The conduct was not treated as mala fide, and Section 76 was described as prescribing only the maximum penalty, leaving room to reduce the quantum according to the circumstances. On these facts, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>