<?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>2006 (3) TMI 71 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4386</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging penalties imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act was successful. The court reinstated the penalties, emphasizing the distinction between penalty provisions in Central Excise law and service tax legislation. The penalties imposed under section 76 were upheld, clarifying the need to interpret and apply penalties according to the specific provisions of each law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 71 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4386</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging penalties imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act was successful. The court reinstated the penalties, emphasizing the distinction between penalty provisions in Central Excise law and service tax legislation. The penalties imposed under section 76 were upheld, clarifying the need to interpret and apply penalties according to the specific provisions of each law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>