<?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 (11) TMI 15 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=980</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 76, equivalent to the Service Tax amount, despite the appellant&#039;s plea for leniency due to a genuine belief of non-liability and prior payment of Service Tax, interest, and penalty under Section 78 before the show cause notice. The decision aligned with judicial discipline, following precedents that the penalty under Section 76 should not be less than Rs. 100 per day, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 15 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=980</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 76, equivalent to the Service Tax amount, despite the appellant&#039;s plea for leniency due to a genuine belief of non-liability and prior payment of Service Tax, interest, and penalty under Section 78 before the show cause notice. The decision aligned with judicial discipline, following precedents that the penalty under Section 76 should not be less than Rs. 100 per day, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>