<?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 (9) TMI 1394 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290098</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was unsustainable because the tax liability had been voluntarily discharged before the show cause notice and the record did not establish suppression of facts; the penalty was therefore set aside. The deposited service tax amount was validly appropriated towards the confirmed demand because the payment represented discharge of the liability, so that adjustment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 19:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1394 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290098</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was unsustainable because the tax liability had been voluntarily discharged before the show cause notice and the record did not establish suppression of facts; the penalty was therefore set aside. The deposited service tax amount was validly appropriated towards the confirmed demand because the payment represented discharge of the liability, so that adjustment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>