<?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 (5) TMI 6 - CESTAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellants had a reasonable cause for the failure to deposit service tax on time due to the employee&#039;s fraud, which they detected internally and rectified by depositing the tax voluntarily with interest. The Tribunal considered the appellants&#039; cooperation and bona fides, setting aside the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The appeal and stay petition were disposed of in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 6 - CESTAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellants had a reasonable cause for the failure to deposit service tax on time due to the employee&#039;s fraud, which they detected internally and rectified by depositing the tax voluntarily with interest. The Tribunal considered the appellants&#039; cooperation and bona fides, setting aside the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The appeal and stay petition were disposed of in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>