<?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 (9) TMI 486 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332225</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the appellant&#039;s compliance with section 73(4A) provisions. The judgment clarified the applicability of section 73(4A) to the appellant and emphasized that the provisions were not limited to registered dealers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 486 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332225</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the appellant&#039;s compliance with section 73(4A) provisions. The judgment clarified the applicability of section 73(4A) to the appellant and emphasized that the provisions were not limited to registered dealers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>