<?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>2008 (1) TMI 187 - CESTAT  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4418</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, ruling that there was no deliberate intent to evade tax as the appellants had paid the tax before the show cause notice was issued. However, penalties under Sections 75A, 76, and 77 were upheld due to delays in filing returns and paying taxes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 187 - CESTAT  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4418</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, ruling that there was no deliberate intent to evade tax as the appellants had paid the tax before the show cause notice was issued. However, penalties under Sections 75A, 76, and 77 were upheld due to delays in filing returns and paying taxes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>