<?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 1179 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268370</link>
    <description>The appeal by Malayalam Communication Ltd. against the revision order by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, resulted in the Commissioner&#039;s decision to not impose a penalty under Section 76 but uphold demands and penalties from the lower authority. The Commissioner&#039;s revision order was found unsustainable regarding the demand of interest and penalties under Section 77, but sustainable concerning the penalty under Section 76. The appellant&#039;s appeal before Commissioner (A) was deemed valid, granting Commissioner (A) the authority to decide on the issues under appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:49:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1179 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268370</link>
      <description>The appeal by Malayalam Communication Ltd. against the revision order by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, resulted in the Commissioner&#039;s decision to not impose a penalty under Section 76 but uphold demands and penalties from the lower authority. The Commissioner&#039;s revision order was found unsustainable regarding the demand of interest and penalties under Section 77, but sustainable concerning the penalty under Section 76. The appellant&#039;s appeal before Commissioner (A) was deemed valid, granting Commissioner (A) the authority to decide on the issues under appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>