<?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 (6) TMI 14 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380937</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal against interest liability and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It set aside the re-quantified interest liability exceeding the Show Cause Notice, directing adjustments for payments made by the appellant. The tribunal exercised discretion to delete the penalty under Section 78, citing settled legal interpretation post a Supreme Court decision and the appellant&#039;s payments during the investigation. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had already set aside the addition, no grounds for penalty imposition were found. The appeal was partly allowed and partly remanded in line with the tribunal&#039;s directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2019 07:53:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 14 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380937</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal against interest liability and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It set aside the re-quantified interest liability exceeding the Show Cause Notice, directing adjustments for payments made by the appellant. The tribunal exercised discretion to delete the penalty under Section 78, citing settled legal interpretation post a Supreme Court decision and the appellant&#039;s payments during the investigation. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had already set aside the addition, no grounds for penalty imposition were found. The appeal was partly allowed and partly remanded in line with the tribunal&#039;s directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>