<?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 200 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381123</link>
    <description>Service tax paid under the wrong accounting head for the same taxable service was treated as valid discharge of liability, because service-wise heads after the negative-list regime were only for accounting purposes and did not create a fresh non-payment. The department could make internal adjustment, but a separate demand could not survive once tax for the same transaction had already been paid. Penalty was also unsustainable where tax and interest had been paid and the record showed no mala fide intention to evade. The impugned order was modified by deleting the penalty and accepting the earlier payment as sufficient discharge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2019 08:09:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 200 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381123</link>
      <description>Service tax paid under the wrong accounting head for the same taxable service was treated as valid discharge of liability, because service-wise heads after the negative-list regime were only for accounting purposes and did not create a fresh non-payment. The department could make internal adjustment, but a separate demand could not survive once tax for the same transaction had already been paid. Penalty was also unsustainable where tax and interest had been paid and the record showed no mala fide intention to evade. The impugned order was modified by deleting the penalty and accepting the earlier payment as sufficient discharge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>