<?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>2006 (9) TMI 592 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274799</link>
    <description>The case involved a service provider that failed to register and fulfill statutory obligations under Service Tax laws. The original authority imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which were contested. The Member (T) found the penalty under Section 78 unwarranted and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to set it aside, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:07:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 592 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274799</link>
      <description>The case involved a service provider that failed to register and fulfill statutory obligations under Service Tax laws. The original authority imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which were contested. The Member (T) found the penalty under Section 78 unwarranted and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to set it aside, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>