<?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>2007 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4598</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to delay in tax payment and return filing. However, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside as there was no evidence of suppressing taxable service value. The appellant&#039;s argument that penalties were unwarranted as they voluntarily paid tax before the show cause notice was considered. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with the penalty under Section 78 being overturned, while penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4598</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to delay in tax payment and return filing. However, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside as there was no evidence of suppressing taxable service value. The appellant&#039;s argument that penalties were unwarranted as they voluntarily paid tax before the show cause notice was considered. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with the penalty under Section 78 being overturned, while penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>