<?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 1430 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377409</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand of service tax on Security Agency Services due to incorrect application of the reverse charge mechanism. However, the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, was upheld at &amp;amp;8377; 6,105/- despite the appellants having paid the entire tax liability to the government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:30:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1430 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377409</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand of service tax on Security Agency Services due to incorrect application of the reverse charge mechanism. However, the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, was upheld at &amp;amp;8377; 6,105/- despite the appellants having paid the entire tax liability to the government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>