<?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 (5) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379435</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, affirming the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act despite the payment of service tax and interest before the show cause notice. The appellant&#039;s argument of innocence was rejected as evidence showed collection of service tax without remittance. The court found no legal errors, dismissed the appeal, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 17:50:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379435</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, affirming the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act despite the payment of service tax and interest before the show cause notice. The appellant&#039;s argument of innocence was rejected as evidence showed collection of service tax without remittance. The court found no legal errors, dismissed the appeal, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>