<?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 1540 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291212</link>
    <description>Service tax valuation and liability turned on whether the assessee&#039;s documentary evidence supported claimed abatements, threshold exemption and the correct treatment of different categories of works, including painting and whitewashing taxed at 60% under the valuation notification. The Tribunal found that the record had not been properly appreciated, that the short declaration appeared bona fide rather than false, and that penalty under Section 78 could not be mechanically sustained on a false-declaration theory. Demand, interest and penalty were not finally sustained; the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on exemption, abatement, taxability, interest and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1540 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291212</link>
      <description>Service tax valuation and liability turned on whether the assessee&#039;s documentary evidence supported claimed abatements, threshold exemption and the correct treatment of different categories of works, including painting and whitewashing taxed at 60% under the valuation notification. The Tribunal found that the record had not been properly appreciated, that the short declaration appeared bona fide rather than false, and that penalty under Section 78 could not be mechanically sustained on a false-declaration theory. Demand, interest and penalty were not finally sustained; the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on exemption, abatement, taxability, interest and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>