<?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 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335517</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and cross-objections regarding tax demand, recovery, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal upheld the order, noting the assessee&#039;s discharge of tax liability before issuance. The non-imposition of penalty under section 78 was deemed reasonable due to the absence of intent to evade taxes. The decision aligned with the facts and legal provisions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and cross-objections.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335517</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and cross-objections regarding tax demand, recovery, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal upheld the order, noting the assessee&#039;s discharge of tax liability before issuance. The non-imposition of penalty under section 78 was deemed reasonable due to the absence of intent to evade taxes. The decision aligned with the facts and legal provisions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and cross-objections.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>