<?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 (6) TMI 795 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361968</link>
    <description>Penalty under the service tax law was set aside where the assessee had registered, filed ST-3 returns and discharged tax on the amount retained, and the record showed no suppression of facts or intent to evade. On those facts, bona fide belief and reasonable cause justified waiver of penalty under the statutory relief provision. The confirmed demand and interest were left undisturbed, so relief was confined to the penal portion only.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:11:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 795 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361968</link>
      <description>Penalty under the service tax law was set aside where the assessee had registered, filed ST-3 returns and discharged tax on the amount retained, and the record showed no suppression of facts or intent to evade. On those facts, bona fide belief and reasonable cause justified waiver of penalty under the statutory relief provision. The confirmed demand and interest were left undisturbed, so relief was confined to the penal portion only.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>