<?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 1103 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185277</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the service tax liability under banking and financial services for amounts paid by the appellant but set aside penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Interest liability was confirmed as the appellant had already discharged it before the show cause notice was issued. The penalties were overturned due to the appellant&#039;s timely payment of service tax and interest, invoking relevant provisions of the Finance Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1103 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185277</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the service tax liability under banking and financial services for amounts paid by the appellant but set aside penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Interest liability was confirmed as the appellant had already discharged it before the show cause notice was issued. The penalties were overturned due to the appellant&#039;s timely payment of service tax and interest, invoking relevant provisions of the Finance Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>