<?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>2016 (1) TMI 209 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270417</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 based on the principle that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed simultaneously. The appellant was allowed to pay a reduced penalty of 25% under Section 78, subject to payment within 30 days from the Tribunal&#039;s order, while upholding the demand for service tax, interest, and a penalty under Section 75A. The appeal was partly allowed in these terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 209 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270417</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 based on the principle that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed simultaneously. The appellant was allowed to pay a reduced penalty of 25% under Section 78, subject to payment within 30 days from the Tribunal&#039;s order, while upholding the demand for service tax, interest, and a penalty under Section 75A. The appeal was partly allowed in these terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>