<?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 (8) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365147</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for non-payment of service tax on legal services, as there was no evidence of fraudulent intent and the appellant rectified the non-payment before the show-cause notice. The discrepancy in taxable value was attributed to accounting treatment, and the appellant corrected it by depositing the service tax amount. The Tribunal found no fraudulent activities and concluded that the penalty could not be justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2018 08:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365147</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for non-payment of service tax on legal services, as there was no evidence of fraudulent intent and the appellant rectified the non-payment before the show-cause notice. The discrepancy in taxable value was attributed to accounting treatment, and the appellant corrected it by depositing the service tax amount. The Tribunal found no fraudulent activities and concluded that the penalty could not be justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>