<?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 396 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335751</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty imposed under Section 78 for failure to pay service tax collected but not deposited was unsustainable. The tribunal found that the services provided were not taxable, and Section 78 did not apply to the situation where service tax had been collected but not paid due to a misunderstanding of taxability. The penalty was set aside based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and judicial precedents, allowing the appeal on the penalty issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 396 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335751</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty imposed under Section 78 for failure to pay service tax collected but not deposited was unsustainable. The tribunal found that the services provided were not taxable, and Section 78 did not apply to the situation where service tax had been collected but not paid due to a misunderstanding of taxability. The penalty was set aside based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and judicial precedents, allowing the appeal on the penalty issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>