<?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 (3) TMI 416 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376395</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the matter for the correct computation of tax liability, setting aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Act due to lack of evidence of fraud, suppression, or misstatement. The penalty under Section 77 was upheld, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant on that aspect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 416 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376395</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the matter for the correct computation of tax liability, setting aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Act due to lack of evidence of fraud, suppression, or misstatement. The penalty under Section 77 was upheld, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant on that aspect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>