<?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 (2) TMI 140 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4594</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner of Service Tax&#039;s revisionary order. The original authority&#039;s decision to drop the demand and penalties was upheld as the appellants had paid the service tax and interest before the show cause notice, and there was no intention to evade tax. The penalties imposed by the Commissioner were deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 140 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4594</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner of Service Tax&#039;s revisionary order. The original authority&#039;s decision to drop the demand and penalties was upheld as the appellants had paid the service tax and interest before the show cause notice, and there was no intention to evade tax. The penalties imposed by the Commissioner were deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>