<?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>2007 (11) TMI 28 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2779</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be enhanced mechanically by relying only on the statutory minimum where the adjudicating authority has exercised discretion and given reasons for a lower penalty. The enhancement order was invalid because it recorded no independent reasons and ignored the basis on which the original authority fixed penalty at Rs. 1,000. The earlier discretionary penalty was therefore protected, and the enhancement was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 28 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2779</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be enhanced mechanically by relying only on the statutory minimum where the adjudicating authority has exercised discretion and given reasons for a lower penalty. The enhancement order was invalid because it recorded no independent reasons and ignored the basis on which the original authority fixed penalty at Rs. 1,000. The earlier discretionary penalty was therefore protected, and the enhancement was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>