<?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 (7) TMI 169 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345057</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals by remanding the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for reconsideration of setting aside penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case underscores the significance of thorough legal analysis and adherence to procedural fairness in tax disputes to uphold compliance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2017 08:27:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 169 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345057</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals by remanding the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for reconsideration of setting aside penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case underscores the significance of thorough legal analysis and adherence to procedural fairness in tax disputes to uphold compliance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>