<?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 (11) TMI 105 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267296</link>
    <description>The appeal by the revenue against an Order-in-Appeal maintaining a service tax demand, Cenvat credit, and penalties waiver was dismissed. The case involved a security services company found liable for service tax payment, with penalties waived by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to financial constraints and delayed payment. The Tribunal upheld the waiver of penalties under Sections 76 and 78, considering the circumstances of delayed payment and financial hardships faced by the company. The impugned order was upheld, emphasizing the company&#039;s declaration of liability, payment of demanded amounts, and the absence of evasion in service tax payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 105 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267296</link>
      <description>The appeal by the revenue against an Order-in-Appeal maintaining a service tax demand, Cenvat credit, and penalties waiver was dismissed. The case involved a security services company found liable for service tax payment, with penalties waived by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to financial constraints and delayed payment. The Tribunal upheld the waiver of penalties under Sections 76 and 78, considering the circumstances of delayed payment and financial hardships faced by the company. The impugned order was upheld, emphasizing the company&#039;s declaration of liability, payment of demanded amounts, and the absence of evasion in service tax payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>