<?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 (10) TMI 970 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349815</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the service tax liability on construction of flats, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s failure to promptly pay taxes despite legal clarity provided by a High Court ruling and an Explanation to the Finance Act. While confirming penalties under Section 77, the tribunal reduced penalties under Section 78 due to the appellant&#039;s non-involvement in challenging the levy&#039;s constitutional validity. The tribunal directed verification of excess tax payments, refunding any overpaid amounts, and denied cum tax benefit due to insufficient evidence of tax elements in invoices. The appeal was partly allowed based on these considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:35:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 970 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349815</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the service tax liability on construction of flats, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s failure to promptly pay taxes despite legal clarity provided by a High Court ruling and an Explanation to the Finance Act. While confirming penalties under Section 77, the tribunal reduced penalties under Section 78 due to the appellant&#039;s non-involvement in challenging the levy&#039;s constitutional validity. The tribunal directed verification of excess tax payments, refunding any overpaid amounts, and denied cum tax benefit due to insufficient evidence of tax elements in invoices. The appeal was partly allowed based on these considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>