<?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 (7) TMI 1180 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383484</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the ROM application, modifying the final order to rectify the mistake regarding penalties imposed for service tax non-compliance under &#039;Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Services&#039; and &#039;GTA Services&#039;. The appellant&#039;s filing of ST-3 returns was acknowledged, leading to the setting aside of the penalty for &#039;Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Services&#039; due to a payment delay. However, the penalty for &#039;GTA Services&#039; was upheld, with instructions for separate quantification. The decision highlighted the error in the Tribunal&#039;s observation on non-filing of returns, ultimately favoring the appellant in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=581047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1180 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383484</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the ROM application, modifying the final order to rectify the mistake regarding penalties imposed for service tax non-compliance under &#039;Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Services&#039; and &#039;GTA Services&#039;. The appellant&#039;s filing of ST-3 returns was acknowledged, leading to the setting aside of the penalty for &#039;Clearing &amp;amp; Forwarding Services&#039; due to a payment delay. However, the penalty for &#039;GTA Services&#039; was upheld, with instructions for separate quantification. The decision highlighted the error in the Tribunal&#039;s observation on non-filing of returns, ultimately favoring the appellant in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>