<?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 (2) TMI 234 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354813</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 required fresh examination because the record indicated that part of the tax and related interest had been paid, while the assessee claimed the benefit of reduced penalty under the proviso had not been considered. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to reconsider the penalty and determine whether the reduced-penalty option under the proviso to Section 78 was available on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 234 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354813</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 required fresh examination because the record indicated that part of the tax and related interest had been paid, while the assessee claimed the benefit of reduced penalty under the proviso had not been considered. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to reconsider the penalty and determine whether the reduced-penalty option under the proviso to Section 78 was available on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>