<?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 (4) TMI 1039 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176787</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the revisionary order imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued without jurisdiction as an appeal against the original order was pending. As per Section 84(4) of the Act, the Commissioner cannot pass a revisionary order when an appeal on the same issue is pending. Therefore, the revisionary order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1039 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176787</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the revisionary order imposing penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued without jurisdiction as an appeal against the original order was pending. As per Section 84(4) of the Act, the Commissioner cannot pass a revisionary order when an appeal on the same issue is pending. Therefore, the revisionary order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>