<?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 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1020</link>
    <description>An amnesty scheme for delayed service tax compliance extended relief to a service provider that regularised tax and interest within the scheme period, so penalties under sections 76, 77 and the balance penalty under section 78 were set aside. The benefit of the scheme could not be denied merely because the liability was admitted and discharged during the scheme. However, the 25% of penalty already paid under section 78 was not refundable and remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1020</link>
      <description>An amnesty scheme for delayed service tax compliance extended relief to a service provider that regularised tax and interest within the scheme period, so penalties under sections 76, 77 and the balance penalty under section 78 were set aside. The benefit of the scheme could not be denied merely because the liability was admitted and discharged during the scheme. However, the 25% of penalty already paid under section 78 was not refundable and remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>