<?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 (8) TMI 834 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346776</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties under Section 76 &amp;amp; 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant&#039;s bona fide belief, timely payment of taxes, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions were crucial in determining the liability and penalties related to service tax on External Commercial Borrowings arrangement fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 834 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346776</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties under Section 76 &amp;amp; 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant&#039;s bona fide belief, timely payment of taxes, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions were crucial in determining the liability and penalties related to service tax on External Commercial Borrowings arrangement fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>