<?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 897 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341927</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest prior to 08.05.2010 and the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing precedents and the retrospective nature of the amendments. The late fee under Section 70 for delayed filing of returns was upheld as a statutory requirement. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 897 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341927</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest prior to 08.05.2010 and the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing precedents and the retrospective nature of the amendments. The late fee under Section 70 for delayed filing of returns was upheld as a statutory requirement. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>