<?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 (7) TMI 714 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278772</link>
    <description>Penalty was found unwarranted where the assessee&#039;s default arose from a bona fide misunderstanding of the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. concerning material consumed or sold while providing photography services. The dispute turned on interpretation of the notification, and the record reflected uncertainty in its scope together with reliance on official clarification. As the relevant interpretative issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court and the tax and interest were later paid, the lapse was treated as confusion over the legal position rather than deliberate non-compliance, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:38:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=559006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 714 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278772</link>
      <description>Penalty was found unwarranted where the assessee&#039;s default arose from a bona fide misunderstanding of the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. concerning material consumed or sold while providing photography services. The dispute turned on interpretation of the notification, and the record reflected uncertainty in its scope together with reliance on official clarification. As the relevant interpretative issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court and the tax and interest were later paid, the lapse was treated as confusion over the legal position rather than deliberate non-compliance, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>