<?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>2017 (2) TMI 386 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338686</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the appellant collected but failed to pay service tax on time. However, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside due to the managing director&#039;s death causing delays, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:02:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 386 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338686</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the appellant collected but failed to pay service tax on time. However, the penalty under Section 78 was set aside due to the managing director&#039;s death causing delays, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>