<?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>2018 (1) TMI 532 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353796</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the penalty while confirming the demand, citing lack of evidence of malafide intention on the part of the respondent. Additionally, the Tribunal adjusted the late fee imposed for failure to file returns, aligning with precedent to ensure fairness in penalty imposition. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on these considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 532 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353796</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the penalty while confirming the demand, citing lack of evidence of malafide intention on the part of the respondent. Additionally, the Tribunal adjusted the late fee imposed for failure to file returns, aligning with precedent to ensure fairness in penalty imposition. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on these considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>