<?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 (12) TMI 343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371574</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s proactive rectification of incorrectly availed cenvat credit and prompt payment of service tax. The decision highlighted the lack of fraudulent intent, participation in audits, and compliance with tax obligations, ultimately concluding that confirming the penalty was unwarranted based on legal precedents and the appellant&#039;s actions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:34:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371574</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s proactive rectification of incorrectly availed cenvat credit and prompt payment of service tax. The decision highlighted the lack of fraudulent intent, participation in audits, and compliance with tax obligations, ultimately concluding that confirming the penalty was unwarranted based on legal precedents and the appellant&#039;s actions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>