<?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 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270506</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the impugned review order imposing a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994, citing the doctrine of merger. As the original order had been remanded, the tribunal found the penalty unnecessary. The review order was consequently set aside, and the appeal disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the application of legal principles in reviewing orders and the impact of appellate proceedings on subsequent actions by the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:04:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270506</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the impugned review order imposing a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994, citing the doctrine of merger. As the original order had been remanded, the tribunal found the penalty unnecessary. The review order was consequently set aside, and the appeal disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the application of legal principles in reviewing orders and the impact of appellate proceedings on subsequent actions by the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>