<?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 (7) TMI 303 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329705</link>
    <description>Where the entire service tax liability and interest were discharged before issue of the show cause notice, the delinquency was treated as cured and the relief contemplated by Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 applied. Penalty under Section 76 was therefore not sustainable merely because returns had been filed and tax was paid later; once statutory dues were paid before the notice stage, continuation of penalty was unwarranted and it was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:55:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 303 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329705</link>
      <description>Where the entire service tax liability and interest were discharged before issue of the show cause notice, the delinquency was treated as cured and the relief contemplated by Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 applied. Penalty under Section 76 was therefore not sustainable merely because returns had been filed and tax was paid later; once statutory dues were paid before the notice stage, continuation of penalty was unwarranted and it was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>