<?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>2005 (2) TMI 862 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189150</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the penalty imposed on the appellant for a delay in service tax payment was unwarranted. The appellant&#039;s delay was attributed to an entry error in the return, not an attempt to evade tax. The tribunal determined that there was no evidence of receipt suppression. Consequently, the penalty of &amp;amp;8377; 7,700 was set aside, and any related relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:39:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 862 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189150</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the penalty imposed on the appellant for a delay in service tax payment was unwarranted. The appellant&#039;s delay was attributed to an entry error in the return, not an attempt to evade tax. The tribunal determined that there was no evidence of receipt suppression. Consequently, the penalty of &amp;amp;8377; 7,700 was set aside, and any related relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>