<?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 (9) TMI 419 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347662</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, dropping the penalty under section 76 for evasion post 10.5.2008 but sustaining penalties under sections 76 and 78 for the period before that date. It clarified that the amendment barring simultaneous penalties operated prospectively and emphasized the discretion of the appellate authority in penalty imposition. The matter was remanded for quantifying tax evasion separately for periods before and after 10.5.2008.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:59:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 419 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347662</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, dropping the penalty under section 76 for evasion post 10.5.2008 but sustaining penalties under sections 76 and 78 for the period before that date. It clarified that the amendment barring simultaneous penalties operated prospectively and emphasized the discretion of the appellate authority in penalty imposition. The matter was remanded for quantifying tax evasion separately for periods before and after 10.5.2008.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>