<?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 (3) TMI 485 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325301</link>
    <description>The High Court found a substantial question of law regarding the waiver of penalty under Section 78 in cases of proven suppression of facts for evading service tax. The Court quashed the Tribunal&#039;s order, restoring the appeal for a fresh decision considering all legal provisions, including Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the controversy, keeping all arguments open for further consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 485 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325301</link>
      <description>The High Court found a substantial question of law regarding the waiver of penalty under Section 78 in cases of proven suppression of facts for evading service tax. The Court quashed the Tribunal&#039;s order, restoring the appeal for a fresh decision considering all legal provisions, including Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the controversy, keeping all arguments open for further consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>