<?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>2006 (8) TMI 20 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=740</link>
    <description>Service tax on clearing and forwarding activity was sustained because the taxability issue had already been settled by a Larger Bench in favour of the Revenue. Penalty was deleted because section 80 permits waiver where the assessee shows reasonable cause, and the earlier uncertainty on the legal position supported non-imposition of penalty. The demand therefore remained confirmed, but the penalty component was set aside, giving only partial relief to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 20 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=740</link>
      <description>Service tax on clearing and forwarding activity was sustained because the taxability issue had already been settled by a Larger Bench in favour of the Revenue. Penalty was deleted because section 80 permits waiver where the assessee shows reasonable cause, and the earlier uncertainty on the legal position supported non-imposition of penalty. The demand therefore remained confirmed, but the penalty component was set aside, giving only partial relief to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>