<?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>2020 (1) TMI 845 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391232</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to pay a reduced penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as they failed to deposit the required percentage of the penalty amount within the specified time frame. The tribunal&#039;s reliance on previous decisions emphasizing timely penalty payments was deemed relevant, and the appellant&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 845 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391232</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to pay a reduced penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as they failed to deposit the required percentage of the penalty amount within the specified time frame. The tribunal&#039;s reliance on previous decisions emphasizing timely penalty payments was deemed relevant, and the appellant&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>