<?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 (11) TMI 1435 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351556</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, modifying the order to set aside penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand, interest post a certain date, and the penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act. The penalties were deemed unwarranted due to the timing of the disputed period and the settled issue of liability for service tax on commissions paid to foreign agents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:37:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1435 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351556</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, modifying the order to set aside penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the service tax demand, interest post a certain date, and the penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act. The penalties were deemed unwarranted due to the timing of the disputed period and the settled issue of liability for service tax on commissions paid to foreign agents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>