<?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>2005 (2) TMI 6 - CESTAT (NEW DELHI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242</link>
    <description>The tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the appellant for delayed payment of service tax was unjustified. The appellant&#039;s explanation of an error in entering service charges, leading to a mistaken higher billed amount, was supported by office records. The tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of evasion and that the delay was due to a genuine mistake. As a result, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant from the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 6 - CESTAT (NEW DELHI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242</link>
      <description>The tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the appellant for delayed payment of service tax was unjustified. The appellant&#039;s explanation of an error in entering service charges, leading to a mistaken higher billed amount, was supported by office records. The tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of evasion and that the delay was due to a genuine mistake. As a result, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant from the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>