<?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>2019 (1) TMI 566 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373401</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was found unsustainable where the show-cause notice was issued under section 73(1) without alleging fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade service tax. The short payment arose from the assessee&#039;s treatment of pure agent es and non-payment of reverse charge tax on director-related payments, but the record showed only a disputed interpretation of the service tax scheme and payment of tax once the liability was pointed out. On that basis, the requisite mens rea for penalty was absent and section 73(3) read with Explanation 2 applied, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2019 06:47:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 566 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373401</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was found unsustainable where the show-cause notice was issued under section 73(1) without alleging fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade service tax. The short payment arose from the assessee&#039;s treatment of pure agent es and non-payment of reverse charge tax on director-related payments, but the record showed only a disputed interpretation of the service tax scheme and payment of tax once the liability was pointed out. On that basis, the requisite mens rea for penalty was absent and section 73(3) read with Explanation 2 applied, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>