<?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 (4) TMI 751 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341781</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant for delayed payment of Service Tax was not justified as the appellant had filed the necessary returns and eventually paid the tax with interest. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty provision should not be applied in cases where the tax liability was fully disclosed and there was no intention to evade payment. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:52:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 751 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341781</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant for delayed payment of Service Tax was not justified as the appellant had filed the necessary returns and eventually paid the tax with interest. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty provision should not be applied in cases where the tax liability was fully disclosed and there was no intention to evade payment. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>